It appears the USAFRL and Navy transition via believes we are up to it. Both potentially huge.Totally agree.
Currently, the company earns $0 in royalty fees, and our revenue doesn’t even come close to covering Sean’s salary. This leaves us with only two possible conclusions: either our product/technology is subpar, or our management is failing. Earlier this year, Sean loudly celebrated landing a “huge deal,” which turned out to be a partnership with a small company Onsor that sells student iPads. As expected, the deal brought in zero revenue. Sean has failed to deliver — it’s time for him to go.
QV/Lockheed- Martin as well - game changer cybersecurity. Plus others that have come to light since Sept'24.
Example of how long it takes.
Renesas licenced AKIDA in Dec'20. Two years later after negotiating with clients it announced in Dec'22 it announced it was taping out a chip of its own containing AKIDA.
The taping process likely took 3 to 6 months.
The client was likely auto so the testing process could take years and if not safety related we may see something later this year. If its safety related testing takes a lot longer.
But the chip is surely with a client otherwise why would Renesas bother.
Because BRN is around 74% public/retail owned and the ASX knows its highly shorted and traded BRN cannot announce the slightest information that may have the slightest chance of creating a false market.
The ASX puts up with trader created pumps and dumps but would not tolerate BRN giving traders a sniff. Eg Merc news which were not even BRN created.
The reason is that the ASX knows in false markets shorters and traders take money from mum and dad retailers who often buy near tops when the excitement peaks.
BRN, a predominately retail held stock is easy money for them. They are out to take your money.
BRN cannot even give qualified estimates of Engagements ongoing, projected revenue timeframes etc. Traders would jump on and pump like no tomorrow and dump leaving mums and dads watching as it falls.