BRN Discussion Ongoing

D

Deleted member 118

Guest
Heard it all now.


351D9E19-5ADA-464D-8D22-65420EC2838C.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 8 users

Dang Son

Regular
Hi Dang Son and everyone else,

I intend to now put this question to bed once and for all.

Many here will remember an Australian company GetSwift and the games it tried to play to 'ramp' its share price which led to it delisting on the ASX and I believe moving to Canada.

In short it was committing a fraud on its shareholders and the market by fabricating and exaggerating the extent of an engagement that it claimed to have achieved. It was discovered and successful prosecutions launched.

In consequence of this case the ASX revised completely its approach to 'ramping' and how it deals with companies it considers are engaged in this practice. The prosecution of the female tech founder and her subsequent imprisonment in the USA has placed even greater focus at the ASX on technology companies particularly those like Brainchip which has revolutionary technology that is not understood by most and which organisations like the Australian Financial Review, Motley Fool and ***************** have been calling out for being driven by retail to unstainable levels with unproven technology the 'WANCA' effect in other words.

Though I am a retired lawyer the very fact I am retired means I cannot provide legal advice so I will reproduce advice from actual practising Lawyers to their clients regarding this issue:

Thinking | 9 June 2021

ASX cracks down on ‘ramping announcements’

By Michelle Eastwell and Vanessa Murphy
The use of ‘ramping announcements’ has been on ASX’s radar for some time now. Listed companies should carefully consider the content of and language used in market announcements, following ASX’s latest update to Guidance Note 8, which came into effect on 5 June 2021.
As the name suggests, a ‘ramping announcement’ is made with a view to ‘ramping up’ the price of securities and can take a variety of forms. Examples include announcements that contain no new material information or substance but are issued under the guise of ‘business updates’ or on the back of strong market sentiment in a sector. A quick series of announcements intended to pique investor interest but which aren’t particularly material can also be ‘ramping announcements’.
‘Ramping announcements’ can also take the form of an announcement that an entity has entered into what appears to be a material contract but with very limited information disclosed to actually assess the materiality of the contract and its impact on the price or value of the entity’s securities. This has been a particular area of focus for ASX.
Examples of ‘ramping announcements’ identified by ASX include:

  • announcing a contract with a major customer to leverage off the customer’s reputation, without properly quantifying the benefit to the entity. In one instance, this included disclosure of a ‘material commercial agreement with a leading financial entity’ under which the entity was to receive less than $1,000;
  • announcing a contract when in fact it is only a non-binding heads of agreement or a framework agreement that only establishes contractual arrangements that will apply to future orders (if any are made);
  • projecting substantial revenues, without reasonable grounds; and
  • describing a contract as ‘material’ when clearly it is not.
ASX has previously observed instances of ‘ramping announcements’ being made just prior to or after a capital raising, presumably with the intent of boosting the raising price or the post raise trading price or following the appointment of advisors where they are remunerated in securities.
If ASX suspects a ‘ramping announcement’ has been made, it will carefully consider whether to suspend trading and issue a query letter to the entity seeking further information about the announcement. In particular, ASX may ask the entity to advise what information was market sensitive, and, if not market sensitive, to explain the purpose of the announcement, and, if the announcement includes any projections or forward looking statements, the reasonable grounds on which those statements are based. This also aligns with ASX’s recent monitoring activities in relation to the disclosure of material contracts, which have involved revisiting historical announcements to assess whether matters previously disclosed are consistent with, and do not overstate, the true position reached by the listed company in relation to the relevant contract or transaction.
Where an announcement relates to a contract, ASX may ask for a copy of the contract (not for release to market) in order to verify compliance with disclosure obligations.
ASX may also require corrective disclosure to be made where information in a ‘ramping announcement’ was not material or was incomplete or misleading, advising of these matters and stating that investors should not make investment decisions based on the announcement. This is unlikely to be well received by the market.
With the continued focus by ASX on ‘ramping announcements’, listed companies should ensure they turn their minds to the appropriateness of announcements that do not clearly contain price sensitive information. While there will often be a range of legitimate reasons for making such announcements, careful consideration should be given to the language used, the timing and proximity to other announcements and the substance of the announcement.
For further information regarding disclosure obligations, please contact our team.


So having read this advice and having communicated with Tony Dawe I can say that Brainchip being made aware in discussions with the ASX that they are specifically watching technology stocks and that they will come down very hard on what they consider to be 'ramping’’. Brainchip decided to take the approach that it will only release on the ASX solid gold price sensitive announcements with real income presently attaching. Potential will not be enough no matter how much it appears to be.

The above advice explains the wisdom of taking this approach as even a marked 'non price sensitive' update such as we have formed a partnership with SiFive for example could be called out as ‘ramping’ by the ASX.

Brainchip has taken the view that as a result of all of the attacks that it suffered and continues to suffer, its Australian and International reputation, at this critical point in its success trajectory would be significantly affected even by an enquiry from the ASX regarding an allegation to the effect that it was engaging in 'ramping.

Brainchip and those that control the levers clearly know they do not need to 'ramp' they are on the road to success and even though some short term pain might be encountered as a result of this approach, the company's future and its potential customer engagements are far too important to have their reputation tarnished by a 'ramping' allegation even if later found not to be proven.

I would now suggest that if you have not listened to the Rob Lincourt of DELL Technologies podcast you take the time to do so because he talks about the need for his industry which is Brainchip's industry to regain trust because of the errors that have occurred in the past with artificial intelligence and the general suspicion that exists across the market when Ai is mentioned.

The need for explainable Ai which I am sure you have read about and for trust in the automotive sector to gain the approval of Governments and politicians for autonomous driving and supporting legislation, requires Brainchip to have a squeaky clean reputation as any scandal could cause a potential partner to look elsewhere even if in doing so they give up the opportunity to be using the best technology.

So we have lots of things to thank the corrupt end of the share market for and this is but one more thing but in the end because we have the right people running the company we will come out on top in my opinion. By being ultra careful no mistakes or missteps can occur.

Please therefore in your dealings with Brainchip try to be understanding as to the tightrope they are walking with the absolute best interests of the company and shareholders always at the forefront of their thinking.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
Hi FF
Thanks for your highly valued view on the disclosure discussion.
I do appreciate that fluff announcements hold no sustained value then I question Robs exultations claiming excitement in numerous interviews and podcasts during the most resent parabolic rise which could have been considered over exuberant or possibly premature, especially by investors entering upwards of $2.
Personally, I'm really appreciative of all the great research shared here by folk more talented than myself which continues to reinforce confidence to hold tight and a belief that recent highs will be surpassed in not too distant future,
I do look forward to less frustrating conditions of official progress disclosure.😎
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 13 users

Potato

Regular
Thanks everyone for keeping the BRN news alive. So great to see articles and videos of the work BRN are doing.
On Thursday 31st March 2022, the bull run should be released from his shackles!


And we all say.. Akida Balistaaaaaaa!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Quercuskid

Regular
March 2022?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

chapman89

Founding Member
As most would know here, Tata and Brainchip have previously worked together on a Gesture Recognition demo back in 2019, you can find that on YouTube.

This is a comment from the Principal Scientist, Embedded Devices & Intelligent Systems at Tata.
When he says “problems” in the screenshot I’ve provided below, I believe IMO he is talking about current problems that exist with other technologies that Brainchip can help fix, as they’ve purchased a Dev Kit from them.
Now this is the second high positioned person from Tata confirming that Tata and Brainchip are working together, after the comment to me from Arpan Pal which said “We are also
working on Brainchip's Akida
processors”
Who is he? He is
“Distinguished Chief Scientist and Research
Area Head, Embedded Devices and
Intelligent Systems at Tata Consultancy Services”
 

Attachments

  • 8AD73397-D559-4A78-BC1F-F9354C8C716D.jpeg
    8AD73397-D559-4A78-BC1F-F9354C8C716D.jpeg
    300.5 KB · Views: 172
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 62 users

TechGirl

Founding Member
New tweet just now




Translation from German:

FURTHER COOPERATION WITH BRAINCHIP HOLDINGS
With branches in the USA, India and France, the researchers and developers of the semiconductor company BrainChip Holdings (WKN: A14Z7W ISIN: AU000000BRN8 Ticker: 24Y) caused a sensation at the beginning of the year. The leading provider of ultra-low-consumption high-performance chips has made a quantum leap through its cooperation with the Daimler Group. The Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX is to be equipped with the "Superchip" developed by BrainChip. BrainChip's Akida hardware and software makes the "Hey, Mercedes" voice control in the EQXX more efficient by a factor of five to ten. After the announcement, the share could not be held back and increased 2.6-fold within a month.

But that was too much arrogance and the price has returned to a more reasonable valuation level in recent months. The share is trading above the valuation level of September 2020 again and the short-term overvaluation from the beginning of the year seems to have largely been reduced. For long-term oriented investors, interesting entry opportunities should therefore slowly be offered again, because the extremely energy-saving and high-performance Akida processor is currently beating the competition by far. But BrainChip is not resting on its laurels and announced the cooperation with the RISC-V computing company SiFive. Here, the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in decentralized data processing (edge computing) are to be expanded. This should enable companies and users to process their data outside of the "cloud", which is mostly controlled by large corporations.


Oooooooooo "Superchip" I like it.

"The Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX is to be equipped with the "Superchip" developed by BrainChip."

Thanks for sharing (y)
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 43 users

Dhm

Regular
I found this recent research article from 1 April 2022 VERRRY interesting! This work was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and some of the authors were employed by Infineon Technologies & BMW Group.

Spoiler alert. The article doesn't mention BrainChip. Is it just me but I find the absence is very telling especially in context of the last paragraph which states:

"When it comes to AI-based autonomous driving, ensuring functional safety of both software and hardware is a critical issue. The principles that are currently developed to support machine learning models (Henriksson et al., 2018; Mohseni et al., 2019) will also apply to SNNs. Similarly, neuromorphic hardware will have to fulfill the same standards as any automotive electronic system: adhere to temperature ranges, be resistant to vibrations, be deterministic and redundant, or contain self-monitoring. For that reason, only digital neuromorphic systems are candidates for integration in cars, while the use of analog or mixed-signal neuromorphic hardware seems out of scope at the moment due to their intrinsic variability. Hence, we suggest to focus on advanced digital systems such as SpiNNaker2 (Yan et al., 2021) or Loihi2 (Orchard et al., 2021) to further explore neuromorphic hardware for automotive radar processing and automated driving in general."


Automotive Radar Processing With Spiking Neural Networks: Concepts and Challenges​


Front. Neurosci., 01 April 2022


PS: Not trying to start a trend. But do we need to email these authors too? 🤭
Hi @Bravo77 you may recall I emailed Bernard Vogginger, asking about Akida and why it was not also reviewed. Well, he wrote back last night. As I am not well versed in the world where I can respond to Bernhard, could the more intelligent posters (@Diogenese !) lead me to the peer reviewed articles and other issues he mentions?


Screen Shot 2022-04-22 at 8.53.28 am.png
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Wow
Reactions: 31 users

Terroni2105

Founding Member
Hi @Bravo77 you may recall I emailed Bernard Vogginger, asking about Akida and why it was not also reviewed. Well, he wrote back last night. As I am not well versed in the world where I can respond to Bernhard, could the more intelligent posters (@Diogenese !) lead me to the peer reviewed articles and other issues he mentions?


View attachment 4770
Hi Dhm, perhaps you should just provide an overview of other companies who have tested it and are progressing with it but direct him to Brainchip and Anil for the details of technical stuff, I would hate for incorrect information to be supplied on technical details.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 16 users

Dhm

Regular
perhaps you should just provide an overview of other companies who have tested it and are progressing with it but direct him to Brainchip and Anil for the details of technical stuff, I would hate for incorrect information to be supplied on technical details.
Yes that is a good idea, but academics need peer reviewed scientific articles on a particular concept or product - Akida - in order for them to acknowledge and recognise its purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Taproot

Regular
Hi @Bravo77 you may recall I emailed Bernard Vogginger, asking about Akida and why it was not also reviewed. Well, he wrote back last night. As I am not well versed in the world where I can respond to Bernhard, could the more intelligent posters (@Diogenese !) lead me to the peer reviewed articles and other issues he mentions?


View attachment 4770
Or, send him this link:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Fire
Reactions: 4 users
Hi Dhm
I think what you need to do as he is playing the ‘I’m an academic and above reproach’ card is politely advise him you have referred his request to the Brainchip Research facility in Perth to respond.

Then forward his email to Tony Dawe for Brainchip to decide what information they wish to provide. Brainchip has an academic and university research engagement program.

His stance that he was aware of Brainchip and accepted the hearsay comments of a couple of other academics makes clear he had another agenda when writing this paper.
My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 53 users

Taproot

Regular
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Dhm

Regular
Hi Dhm
I think what you need to do as he is playing the ‘I’m an academic and above reproach’ card is politely advise him you have referred his request to the Brainchip Research facility in Perth to respond.

Then forward his email to Tony Dawe for Brainchip to decide what information they wish to provide. Brainchip has an academic and university research engagement program.

His stance that he was aware of Brainchip and accepted the hearsay comments of a couple of other academics makes clear he had another agenda when writing this paper.
My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
As always, the voice of logic and reason. Thanks FF

Edit: email sent to Tony.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 20 users

MrNick

Regular
Hi Dhm, perhaps you should just provide an overview of other companies who have tested it and are progressing with it but direct him to Brainchip and Anil for the details of technical stuff, I would hate for incorrect information to be supplied on technical details.
Agree with that perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Mugen74

Regular
Hi Dhm
I think what you need to do as he is playing the ‘I’m an academic and above reproach’ card is politely advise him you have referred his request to the Brainchip Research facility in Perth to respond.

Then forward his email to Tony Dawe for Brainchip to decide what information they wish to provide. Brainchip has an academic and university research engagement program.

His stance that he was aware of Brainchip and accepted the hearsay comments of a couple of other academics makes clear he had another agenda when writing this paper.
My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
So hes been in the neuromorphic computing scene for a few years but replies like a WANCA??
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 24 users
Hi Dhm
I think what you need to do as he is playing the ‘I’m an academic and above reproach’ card is politely advise him you have referred his request to the Brainchip Research facility in Perth to respond.

Then forward his email to Tony Dawe for Brainchip to decide what information they wish to provide. Brainchip has an academic and university research engagement program.

His stance that he was aware of Brainchip and accepted the hearsay comments of a couple of other academics makes clear he had another agenda when writing this paper.
My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
Hi Dhm
I just read your further post. Brainchip does not have a lot of peer reviewed papers as they are a commercial entity bringing a commercial product to market with patent protection.

You can destroy your own patent by publishing a peer reviewed paper in advance of filing for a patent because it will be claimed your patent is trying to protect publicly available information which you have released yourself.

In consequence Peter van der Made has deliberately not published because their research is ongoing and patents are being regularly lodged to cover this further research.

Just leave it to Brainchip. You have kicked him in the shins.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Haha
Reactions: 46 users
Hi Dhm
I just read your further post. Brainchip does not have a lot of peer reviewed papers as they are a commercial entity bringing a commercial product to market with patent protection.

You can destroy your own patent by publishing a peer reviewed paper in advance of filing for a patent because it will be claimed your patent is trying to protect publicly available information which you have released yourself.

In consequence Peter van der Made has deliberately not published because their research is ongoing and patents are being regularly lodged to cover this further research.

Just leave it to Brainchip. You have kicked him in the shins.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

Hi again Dhm
A small correction or perhaps expansion the paper that can destroy your patent does not have to be peer reviewed to carry this risk. Any published work peer reviewed or not by you can be relied upon by a third party to defend an allegation by you that they are in breach of your patent.

Peter van der Made as you probably know published a book ‘Higher Intelligence’ and when I first started researching Brainchip I paid $55.00 on Amazon for a copy.

I read it to be sure that it was not a book where he was giving away for free the basis of his technology break through thus destroying the future value of his patent protection. It was not in my opinion that type of book. Thank goodness.

I have knowledge in my field which is the law but anyone can read about patents and how to ensure you end up with a strong valid patent good against all the world.

The first thing you need is the idea. The second thing you need is no ego and the ability to keep your mouth shut until all you idea/s are protected by patents.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 36 users

Cyw

Regular
Any insight or comment for the agenda at the next AGM? Is there any issues to consider before voting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

jk6199

Regular
Some big trades already.

Is it shorters trying to get out, or big players getting in?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 3 users
Some big trades already.

Is it shorters trying to get out, or big players getting in?
Might be both at the same time unless shorters are selling to shorters. LOL FF
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Top Bottom