smoothsailing18
Regular
Bravo...your not going the way of the old Uliux investor are you ?.
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
THOR was discovered on a vid earlier this year by @Pom down under with a couple of responses from posters who watched it as below.
thestockexchange.com.au
thestockexchange.com.au
thestockexchange.com.au
Appears moving ahead pretty quickly with website up and running etc as at November.
Akida & MetaTF has been included with a number of other neuromorphic players HW / SW like Loihi, Spinnaker, Brainscales, Dynap etc.
Not a bad thing imo, having major exposure to the academic groups and new breed of engineers and developers etc that will be part of the driving force behind further neuromorphic uptake.
What is THOR (as opposed to who is THOR
):
www.neuromorphiccommons.com
Building
We envision a future where interdisciplinary collaboration on biological intelligence is seamless. Through close partnerships with industry, THOR will empower researchers to request, co-develop, deploy, and evaluate neuromorphic experiments on heterogeneous computing hardware systems. This platform will enable a richer understanding of computational models, algorithms, neuromorphic hardware, and real-world applications that benefit from bio-inspired processing.
Deployed at the University of Texas at San Antonio, THOR's infrastructure is hosted and maintained on-site. This provides a stable and reliable resource, ensuring community researchers have the ability to innovate and push the boundaries of what's possible in neuromorphic computing.
Neuromorphic hardware systems and chips are a groundbreaking class of computer processors engineered to mimic the efficiency and structure of the human brain. Unlike conventional computers, which separate processing and memory (the von Neumann bottleneck), neuromorphic chips integrate these functions by using networks of artificial neurons and synapses, eliminating the energy-intensive transfer of data. These chips rely on Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), where processing is event-driven—meaning the artificial neurons only consume power when an information "spike" is received—leading to drastically lower energy consumption and latency. This brain-inspired architecture, demonstrated in chips like Intel's Loihi and IBM's TrueNorth, makes them exceptionally well-suited for demanding, real-time AI tasks requiring on-chip learning and adaptation, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as autonomous vehicles, robotics, and edge computing devices.
Neuromorphic software frameworks are the essential programming bridge that allows developers to design and deploy efficient, brain-inspired algorithms—namely Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs)—onto specialized neuromorphic hardware. Unlike traditional software that uses continuous data and sequential instructions, these frameworks provide tools and APIs to work with the event-driven, asynchronous communication characteristic of spiking neurons and to leverage synaptic plasticity for on-chip learning. Key examples include Intel's Lava (an open-source framework designed to be hardware-agnostic), PyNN (a simulator-independent language for SNN model specification), and deep learning extensions like snnTorch (which integrates SNNs with the PyTorch ecosystem), all of which are crucial for overcoming the complexities of programming massively parallel, bio-inspired architectures to fulfill the promise of ultra-low-power AI.
BRN Discussion Ongoing
I share very similar concerns. I simply don't trust Sean Hehir and I reckon Tony Dawe is sincere but probably in the dark as much as we shareholders. I've been waiting too long for my investment to bear fruit (originally bought about 2019 at 6 cents, and now average 65 cents) its making me very...
thestockexchange.com.au
BRN Discussion Ongoing
I share very similar concerns. I simply don't trust Sean Hehir and I reckon Tony Dawe is sincere but probably in the dark as much as we shareholders. I've been waiting too long for my investment to bear fruit (originally bought about 2019 at 6 cents, and now average 65 cents) its making me very...
thestockexchange.com.au
BRN Discussion Ongoing
ok watching it now and already at the 2.33min the presenter announces out loud brainchip! So now got 28mins to go but its a great start to the video thanks Pom. Ok watched it all, basically talk was about progressing neuromorphic awareness and Edge AI Foundation building THOR which will bring...
thestockexchange.com.au
Appears moving ahead pretty quickly with website up and running etc as at November.
Akida & MetaTF has been included with a number of other neuromorphic players HW / SW like Loihi, Spinnaker, Brainscales, Dynap etc.
Not a bad thing imo, having major exposure to the academic groups and new breed of engineers and developers etc that will be part of the driving force behind further neuromorphic uptake.
What is THOR (as opposed to who is THOR
):THOR Ecosystem
www.neuromorphiccommons.com
The Neuromorphic Commons
THOR is the US hub for open-access large-scale neuromorphic research.Building
Biological Intelligence
at Scale
We envision a future where interdisciplinary collaboration on biological intelligence is seamless. Through close partnerships with industry, THOR will empower researchers to request, co-develop, deploy, and evaluate neuromorphic experiments on heterogeneous computing hardware systems. This platform will enable a richer understanding of computational models, algorithms, neuromorphic hardware, and real-world applications that benefit from bio-inspired processing.Deployed at the University of Texas at San Antonio, THOR's infrastructure is hosted and maintained on-site. This provides a stable and reliable resource, ensuring community researchers have the ability to innovate and push the boundaries of what's possible in neuromorphic computing.
Neuromorphic Hardware
Explore a diverse range of cutting-edge neuromorphic hardware platforms.Neuromorphic hardware systems and chips are a groundbreaking class of computer processors engineered to mimic the efficiency and structure of the human brain. Unlike conventional computers, which separate processing and memory (the von Neumann bottleneck), neuromorphic chips integrate these functions by using networks of artificial neurons and synapses, eliminating the energy-intensive transfer of data. These chips rely on Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs), where processing is event-driven—meaning the artificial neurons only consume power when an information "spike" is received—leading to drastically lower energy consumption and latency. This brain-inspired architecture, demonstrated in chips like Intel's Loihi and IBM's TrueNorth, makes them exceptionally well-suited for demanding, real-time AI tasks requiring on-chip learning and adaptation, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as autonomous vehicles, robotics, and edge computing devices.
Neuromorphic Software
Explore a diverse range of cutting-edge neuromorphic software platforms.Neuromorphic software frameworks are the essential programming bridge that allows developers to design and deploy efficient, brain-inspired algorithms—namely Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs)—onto specialized neuromorphic hardware. Unlike traditional software that uses continuous data and sequential instructions, these frameworks provide tools and APIs to work with the event-driven, asynchronous communication characteristic of spiking neurons and to leverage synaptic plasticity for on-chip learning. Key examples include Intel's Lava (an open-source framework designed to be hardware-agnostic), PyNN (a simulator-independent language for SNN model specification), and deep learning extensions like snnTorch (which integrates SNNs with the PyTorch ecosystem), all of which are crucial for overcoming the complexities of programming massively parallel, bio-inspired architectures to fulfill the promise of ultra-low-power AI.
Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
Simplified fmfGPT1
Contracts & Revenue.
BRN becomes a proper investment worthy growth company not a spec stock.
Couple near term catalysts that would be real handy this upcoming year. BOD need get them over the line.
Onsor trial goes boom. CE Mark and FDA Device approvals. Volume contract & royalties signed. Product goes parabolic.
Frontgrade generates more contract wins to go with their first one. GR801 becomes a standard for sat / space. Royalties ramp up.
Raytheon / Parsons come through and huge defence contracts awarded with long term BRN volume & royalties contract signed.
Arquimea locks in major volume drone / UAV agreements. Signs contract / royalties with BRN.
"Tell him he's dreaming" jumps out at me
Hi FMF,
Hopefully Quantum Ventura's demo at CES 2026 of their Neuro RT cybersecurity model with Akida will be a resounding success.
If it is a success, early commercial sales might start late 2026 and then ramp up to broader revenue growth in 2027 once potential partnerships with resellers, MSPs, or OEMs expand.
Last edited:
smoothsailing18
Regular
Went from avid fan to Turn coat over night.
Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
From my perspective I don't think being realistic makes someone a turncoat.
What I find a bit frustrating is that the moment anything less than blind optimism is posted, the labels start to come out and I don't think that's very helpful for anyone.
I’ve been heavily invested in BrainChip for many years and am carrying a considerable paper loss. Staying optimistic has taken real effort n my behalf, and I’ve remained optimistic that for a very, very, very long time and it's getting exhausting. But I'm not prepared to lie to myself or cherry-pick only the positives while ignoring the negatives. That's called being in denial and I don't mean the River Nile.
I didn’t invent ChatGPT’s valuation. In today’s context it’s admittedly totally miserable and completely pathetic but that’s not my fault. I didn't write it. I was shocked by how low it was too but upon further consideration I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of where the company actually is right now - hardly any licences and no material revenue. Added to that, it's ChatGPT’s valuation, so it may not even be worth the paper it's written on.
Don't get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to see BrainChip acquired for $20 billion. Heck I reckon everyone would be over the moon! But that simply isn’t achievable unless we start signing licences and generating real revenue. Valuations don’t improve through hope alone, they improve through sales.
You even said yourself that BrainChip is "one of the most painful investments experiences you have had to date" and I didn’t accuse you of being a turn-coat, because I completely empathise with your frustration, as I'm sure many of us here on this forum do.
The reality is that neuromorphic computing has taken far longer to gain traction than most of us expected, and the company has made some missteps along the way. I don’t believe calling out the failings alongside the successes is disloyalty, just as I don’t believe honesty is an act of betrayal.
One final observation talking about valuation-related stuff, because it reminded me of a comment Antonio made at the AGM before last, when he said something along the lines of, “Do you know how much revenue we’d need for the share price to be at one or two dollars?” At the time, I was really annoyed that he said that. But with the benefit of hindsight, I’m starting to see it for what it was - a reality check.
That wasn’t ChatGPT talking. That wasn’t me talking. It was our own Chairman of the Board.
Last edited:
Hi Bravo,Seriously hoping Chatty’s hallucination engine has completely underestimated this one.
It says " today, the market-clearing outcome is most likely" $550-600 million dollars or 24 - 26 cents per share.
It also gave a "high-conviction" acquisition price range at $780 million – $1 billion dollars which translates to 35 - 44 cents per share, but this is based on the assumption of something material landing that shifts it from “interesting tech” to “must-own IP”.
Best case valuation it gave was 1.18 billion or 53 cents a share.
Looks like I might have to downsize my yacht order from this...
View attachment 93920
to this...
View attachment 93919
ChatGPT 5
You said:
What do you believe would be a plausible acquisition price range currently for BrainChip for a strategic buyer such as Qualcomm, for example.
ChatGPT said:
A plausible acquisition price range for BrainChip (BRN) by a strategic buyer like Qualcomm is best thought of as:
(today’s market cap) × (a takeover premium)
Because BrainChip’s current revenue is tiny relative to its valuation, any real bid would be strategic/IP-driven (team + patents + neuromorphic know-how + “option value”), not conventional EBIT/revenue multiple.
Anchor: BrainChip’s current market value
Recent quotes put BRN around ~A$380m market cap (e.g., ~A$0.17/share). Listcorp
(That number moves daily, so treat it as an anchor, not a constant.)
Typical takeover premium
For Australian public M&A, control premiums commonly land around ~30–50% (often more in hotter/contested deals). Norton Rose Fulbright+2Corrs Chambers Westgarth+2
What that implies in dollars (using ~A$380m as the base)
Base-case strategic takeout (most common): 1.3× to 1.8× market cap
High strategic value / urgency / competing bidders: 2.0× to 2.5×
- ~A$500m to ~A$700m
Blue-sky / “we must own this” / defensively blocking a rival: 3.0×+
- ~A$760m to ~A$950m
- ~A$1.1b+
This can happen, but usually needs a clear trigger (major design win, credible pipeline converting, or a buyer believing the tech meaningfully shifts a big roadmap).Why Qualcomm (or similar) might pay toward the higher end
- They’ve shown willingness to buy strategic silicon/IP capability (e.g., NUVIA was US$1.4B). Qualcomm
- They’re actively expanding into AI compute + data-center adjacent IP (e.g., Alphawave Semi deal reported around US$2.4B). Investopedia+2Yahoo Finance+2
Those aren’t direct comps to BrainChip, but they confirm Qualcomm will pay real money for “missing pieces” in a platform strategy.The big reality check
BrainChip’s cash position and burn matter because a buyer can always “wait them out” if there’s no near-term catalyst (cash balance figures are disclosed in quarterly/4C reporting). Intelligent Investor+1
That dynamic tends to cap premiums unless BrainChip has unmistakable momentum.
My best “plausible” range (today)
If you forced me to give a single practical band that wouldn’t sound ridiculous to either side:
~A$550m to ~A$950m (roughly 1.4× to 2.5× the ~A$380m anchor). Listcorp+2Norton Rose Fulbright+2
If you tell me BRN’s current share price/market cap today (or your own anchor), I’ll re-run the same logic and give you a tighter band in both AUD and USD.
You said:
Market cap is 394 million and share price is .175 cents
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — let’s lock it down with your numbers.
Inputs (confirmed):
Below is a clean, realistic acquisition framework assuming a strategic buyer like Qualcomm (i.e. IP + talent + long-term option value, not current revenue multiples).
- Market cap: A$394m
- Share price: A$0.175
30–50% control premium is very typical for Australian listed tech when there’s no bidding war.
Standard strategic takeover range (most plausible)
Premium Equity Value Implied Share Price +30% A$512m ~A$0.228 +40% A$552m ~A$0.245 +50% A$591m ~A$0.263
Verdict
A$510m – A$590m
This is the most likely range today if Qualcomm (or similar) decided “we want the IP, the team, and to remove uncertainty”.
This assumes something material has landed, e.g.:
High-conviction / urgency scenario (credible catalyst present)
~2.0× – 2.5× market cap
- meaningful design win,
- visible licence revenue inflection,
- strategic defence / automotive validation,
- or Qualcomm sees neuromorphic as defensive IP they don’t want rivals owning.
Multiple Equity Value Implied Share Price 2.0× A$788m ~A$0.35 2.5× A$985m ~A$0.44
This is not fantasy, but it requires a clear strategic trigger.
This is the “we cannot let Nvidia / Intel / Apple / defence primes get this” scenario.
Blue-sky / defensive block (rare but real)
~3× market cap
This only happens if:
Metric Value Equity value ~A$1.18b Share price ~A$0.53
- neuromorphic becomes obviously inevitable in edge/defence, and
- BrainChip is clearly the commercial leader, not just a research play.
Without a near-term catalyst, buyers know BrainChip’s cash runway and can afford to wait — which caps the premium.
The uncomfortable truth (but important)
That’s why, today, the market-clearing outcome is most likely:
Anything materially above that requires momentum, not hope.
Have a look to see if Chatty is a shorter ... (or a WANCA).
A quick look at Alphaware's offering reveals fairly mundane (ie, bog standard) tech:
https://awavesemi.com/silicon-ip/
US$2.4B ~ AU$4B
I'd question chatty's due diligence in the AI field.
Clearly BRN must be evaluated on its potential.
How does it value the future Edge AI cybersecurity market, and how does it rank the players in this field?
How does it value the micro-Doppler see-in-the dark (ie, where cameras don't work) radar market, ... rank the players?
Does it know how effective TENNs is in SLLM applications?
etc...
PS: It's funny that chatty has lost sight of its own heritage.
By the way, how much profit did OpenAI make last year? What is its PE ratio?
People who live in glass (silicon) computers shouldn't throw spikes ...
Last edited:
Depends on how the question is framed and the information provided - for future year valuations. Given the high level of insider holdings a bid around those values would have no chance of getting through.Seriously hoping Chatty’s hallucination engine has completely underestimated this one.
It says " today, the market-clearing outcome is most likely" $550-600 million dollars or 24 - 26 cents per share.
It also gave a "high-conviction" acquisition price range at $780 million – $1 billion dollars which translates to 35 - 44 cents per share, but this is based on the assumption of something material landing that shifts it from “interesting tech” to “must-own IP”.
Best case valuation it gave was 1.18 billion or 53 cents a share.
Looks like I might have to downsize my yacht order from this...
View attachment 93920
to this...
View attachment 93919
ChatGPT 5
You said:
What do you believe would be a plausible acquisition price range currently for BrainChip for a strategic buyer such as Qualcomm, for example.
ChatGPT said:
A plausible acquisition price range for BrainChip (BRN) by a strategic buyer like Qualcomm is best thought of as:
(today’s market cap) × (a takeover premium)
Because BrainChip’s current revenue is tiny relative to its valuation, any real bid would be strategic/IP-driven (team + patents + neuromorphic know-how + “option value”), not conventional EBIT/revenue multiple.
Anchor: BrainChip’s current market value
Recent quotes put BRN around ~A$380m market cap (e.g., ~A$0.17/share). Listcorp
(That number moves daily, so treat it as an anchor, not a constant.)
Typical takeover premium
For Australian public M&A, control premiums commonly land around ~30–50% (often more in hotter/contested deals). Norton Rose Fulbright+2Corrs Chambers Westgarth+2
What that implies in dollars (using ~A$380m as the base)
Base-case strategic takeout (most common): 1.3× to 1.8× market cap
High strategic value / urgency / competing bidders: 2.0× to 2.5×
- ~A$500m to ~A$700m
Blue-sky / “we must own this” / defensively blocking a rival: 3.0×+
- ~A$760m to ~A$950m
- ~A$1.1b+
This can happen, but usually needs a clear trigger (major design win, credible pipeline converting, or a buyer believing the tech meaningfully shifts a big roadmap).Why Qualcomm (or similar) might pay toward the higher end
- They’ve shown willingness to buy strategic silicon/IP capability (e.g., NUVIA was US$1.4B). Qualcomm
- They’re actively expanding into AI compute + data-center adjacent IP (e.g., Alphawave Semi deal reported around US$2.4B). Investopedia+2Yahoo Finance+2
Those aren’t direct comps to BrainChip, but they confirm Qualcomm will pay real money for “missing pieces” in a platform strategy.The big reality check
BrainChip’s cash position and burn matter because a buyer can always “wait them out” if there’s no near-term catalyst (cash balance figures are disclosed in quarterly/4C reporting). Intelligent Investor+1
That dynamic tends to cap premiums unless BrainChip has unmistakable momentum.
My best “plausible” range (today)
If you forced me to give a single practical band that wouldn’t sound ridiculous to either side:
~A$550m to ~A$950m (roughly 1.4× to 2.5× the ~A$380m anchor). Listcorp+2Norton Rose Fulbright+2
If you tell me BRN’s current share price/market cap today (or your own anchor), I’ll re-run the same logic and give you a tighter band in both AUD and USD.
You said:
Market cap is 394 million and share price is .175 cents
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — let’s lock it down with your numbers.
Inputs (confirmed):
Below is a clean, realistic acquisition framework assuming a strategic buyer like Qualcomm (i.e. IP + talent + long-term option value, not current revenue multiples).
- Market cap: A$394m
- Share price: A$0.175
30–50% control premium is very typical for Australian listed tech when there’s no bidding war.
Premium Equity Value Implied Share Price +30% A$512m ~A$0.228 +40% A$552m ~A$0.245 +50% A$591m ~A$0.263
This is the most likely range today if Qualcomm (or similar) decided “we want the IP, the team, and to remove uncertainty”.
This assumes something material has landed, e.g.:
~2.0× – 2.5× market cap
- meaningful design win,
- visible licence revenue inflection,
- strategic defence / automotive validation,
- or Qualcomm sees neuromorphic as defensive IP they don’t want rivals owning.
Multiple Equity Value Implied Share Price 2.0× A$788m ~A$0.35 2.5× A$985m ~A$0.44
This is not fantasy, but it requires a clear strategic trigger.
This is the “we cannot let Nvidia / Intel / Apple / defence primes get this” scenario.
~3× market cap
This only happens if:
Metric Value Equity value ~A$1.18b Share price ~A$0.53
- neuromorphic becomes obviously inevitable in edge/defence, and
- BrainChip is clearly the commercial leader, not just a research play.
Without a near-term catalyst, buyers know BrainChip’s cash runway and can afford to wait — which caps the premium.
That’s why, today, the market-clearing outcome is most likely:
Anything materially above that requires momentum, not hope.
Last edited:
Like Ahab, I'm going down with the ship:From my perspective I don't think being realistic makes someone a turncoat.
What I find a bit frustrating is that the moment anything less than blind optimism is posted, the labels start to come out and I don't think that's very helpful for anyone.
I’ve been heavily invested in BrainChip for many years and am carrying a considerable paper loss. Staying optimistic has taken real effort n my behalf, and I’ve remained optimistic that for a very, very, very long time and it's getting exhausting. But I'm not prepared to lie to myself or cherry-pick only the positives while ignoring the negatives. That's called being in denial and I don't mean the River Nile.
I didn’t invent ChatGPT’s valuation. In today’s context it’s admittedly totally miserable and completely pathetic but that’s not my fault. I didn't write it. I was shocked by how low it was too but upon further consideration I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of where the company actually is right now - hardly any licences and no material revenue. Added to that, it's ChatGPT’s valuation, so it may not even be worth the paper it's written on.
Don't get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to see BrainChip acquired for $20 billion. Heck I reckon everyone would be over the moon! But that simply isn’t achievable unless we start signing licences and generating real revenue. Valuations don’t improve through hope alone, they improve through sales.
You even said yourself that BrainChip is "one of the most painful investments experiences you have had to date" and I didn’t accuse you of being a turn-coat, because I completely empathise with your frustration, as I'm sure many of us here on this forum do.
The reality is that neuromorphic computing has taken far longer to gain traction than most of us expected, and the company has made some missteps along the way. I don’t believe calling out the failings alongside the successes is disloyalty, just as I don’t believe honesty is an act of betrayal.
One final observation talking about valuation-related stuff, because it reminded me of a comment Antonio made at the AGM before last, when he said something along the lines of, “Do you know how much revenue we’d need for the share price to be at one or two dollars?” At the time, I was really annoyed that he said that. But with the benefit of hindsight, I’m starting to see it for what it was - a reality check.
That wasn’t ChatGPT talking. That wasn’t me talking. It was our own Chairman of the Board.
Actual Arqima drone photo of Pequod from 1843:
Last edited:
We're all exhausted by the wait. Getting to market is like Achilles and the tortoise, we halve the distance every year, ...From my perspective I don't think being realistic makes someone a turncoat.
What I find a bit frustrating is that the moment anything less than blind optimism is posted, the labels start to come out and I don't think that's very helpful for anyone.
I’ve been heavily invested in BrainChip for many years and am carrying a considerable paper loss. Staying optimistic has taken real effort n my behalf, and I’ve remained optimistic that for a very, very, very long time and it's getting exhausting. But I'm not prepared to lie to myself or cherry-pick only the positives while ignoring the negatives. That's called being in denial and I don't mean the River Nile.
I didn’t invent ChatGPT’s valuation. In today’s context it’s admittedly totally miserable and completely pathetic but that’s not my fault. I didn't write it. I was shocked by how low it was too but upon further consideration I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of where the company actually is right now - hardly any licences and no material revenue. Added to that, it's ChatGPT’s valuation, so it may not even be worth the paper it's written on.
Don't get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to see BrainChip acquired for $20 billion. Heck I reckon everyone would be over the moon! But that simply isn’t achievable unless we start signing licences and generating real revenue. Valuations don’t improve through hope alone, they improve through sales.
You even said yourself that BrainChip is "one of the most painful investments experiences you have had to date" and I didn’t accuse you of being a turn-coat, because I completely empathise with your frustration, as I'm sure many of us here on this forum do.
The reality is that neuromorphic computing has taken far longer to gain traction than most of us expected, and the company has made some missteps along the way. I don’t believe calling out the failings alongside the successes is disloyalty, just as I don’t believe honesty is an act of betrayal.
One final observation talking about valuation-related stuff, because it reminded me of a comment Antonio made at the AGM before last, when he said something along the lines of, “Do you know how much revenue we’d need for the share price to be at one or two dollars?” At the time, I was really annoyed that he said that. But with the benefit of hindsight, I’m starting to see it for what it was - a reality check.
That wasn’t ChatGPT talking. That wasn’t me talking. It was our own Chairman of the Board.
From my perspective I don't think being realistic makes someone a turncoat.
What I find a bit frustrating is that the moment anything less than blind optimism is posted, the labels start to come out and I don't think that's very helpful for anyone.
I’ve been heavily invested in BrainChip for many years and am carrying a considerable paper loss. Staying optimistic has taken real effort n my behalf, and I’ve remained optimistic that for a very, very, very long time and it's getting exhausting. But I'm not prepared to lie to myself or cherry-pick only the positives while ignoring the negatives. That's called being in denial and I don't mean the River Nile.
I didn’t invent ChatGPT’s valuation. In today’s context it’s admittedly totally miserable and completely pathetic but that’s not my fault. I didn't write it. I was shocked by how low it was too but upon further consideration I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of where the company actually is right now - hardly any licences and no material revenue. Added to that, it's ChatGPT’s valuation, so it may not even be worth the paper it's written on.
Don't get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to see BrainChip acquired for $20 billion. Heck I reckon everyone would be over the moon! But that simply isn’t achievable unless we start signing licences and generating real revenue. Valuations don’t improve through hope alone, they improve through sales.
You even said yourself that BrainChip is "one of the most painful investments experiences you have had to date" and I didn’t accuse you of being a turn-coat, because I completely empathise with your frustration, as I'm sure many of us here on this forum do.
The reality is that neuromorphic computing has taken far longer to gain traction than most of us expected, and the company has made some missteps along the way. I don’t believe calling out the failings alongside the successes is disloyalty, just as I don’t believe honesty is an act of betrayal.
One final observation talking about valuation-related stuff, because it reminded me of a comment Antonio made at the AGM before last, when he said something along the lines of, “Do you know how much revenue we’d need for the share price to be at one or two dollars?” At the time, I was really annoyed that he said that. But with the benefit of hindsight, I’m starting to see it for what it was - a reality check.
That wasn’t ChatGPT talking. That wasn’t me talking. It was our own Chairman of the Board.
Season's Greetings Bravo
Nicely worded, I agree with your sentiment.
I believe that the company has a lot of work to do in 2026, as in plenty of work.... midway through 2026 I believe we will finally
start to see some engagements bear some fruit, with the period July 2026 through July 2027 as a very nice period for us.
In a recent conversation, it was pointed out to me that Nvidia was around the 0.038c mark from 1999 to 2016 before moving up to
the $1 US mark to now just shy of $200 US a share......it seems to really paint a picture by the well-known artist, Mr. Reality Check
My personal belief in the Akida technology has only gotten stronger over the journey, it continues to evolve, to be fine-tuned to met
specific tasks and individual company's roadmaps, neuromorphic technology is advancing very nicely, and adoption is moving closer to
the other side of that Chasm.......and yes, I feel the frustration of all as well but just trying to remain patient.
No Regerts......Tech
Last edited:
Unconventional Ai , valuation $4.5B USD , equivalent of ASXBRN $3.00 AUD per share .
2 months old . Have several ideas about how to build a neuromorphic chip , will decide which is best after further research .
Several years required to commercialisation .
This is my new minimum and I have Intel as front runner for any takeover offer on BRN .
2 months old . Have several ideas about how to build a neuromorphic chip , will decide which is best after further research .
Several years required to commercialisation .
This is my new minimum and I have Intel as front runner for any takeover offer on BRN .
But how many splits did NVIDIA have to reach this share price?Season's Greetings Bravo
Nicely worded, I agree with your sentiment.
I believe that the company has a lot of work to do in 2026, as in plenty of work.... midway through 2026 I believe we will finally
start to see some engagements bear some fruit, with the period July 2026 through July 2027 as a very nice period for us.
In a recent conversation, it was pointed out to me that Nvidia was around the 0.038c mark from 1999 to 2016 before moving up to
the $1 US mark to now just shy of $200 US a share......it seems to really paint a picture by the well-known artist, Mr. Reality Check
My personal belief in the Akida technology has only gotten stronger over the journey, it continues to evolve, to be fine-tuned to met
specific tasks and individual company's roadmaps, neuromorphic technology is advancing very nicely, and adoption is moving closer to
the other side of that Chasm.......and yes, I feel the frustration of all as well but just trying to remain patient.
No Regerts......Tech
smoothsailing18
Regular
Bravo, you are so up beat and funny generally so tongue to cheek when saying turncoat because of your chatty posts which isn't you that threw me off. I totally get it tho it's a drag this lack of communication from head quarters as far as positive support to shareholders .From my perspective I don't think being realistic makes someone a turncoat.
What I find a bit frustrating is that the moment anything less than blind optimism is posted, the labels start to come out and I don't think that's very helpful for anyone.
I’ve been heavily invested in BrainChip for many years and am carrying a considerable paper loss. Staying optimistic has taken real effort n my behalf, and I’ve remained optimistic that for a very, very, very long time and it's getting exhausting. But I'm not prepared to lie to myself or cherry-pick only the positives while ignoring the negatives. That's called being in denial and I don't mean the River Nile.
I didn’t invent ChatGPT’s valuation. In today’s context it’s admittedly totally miserable and completely pathetic but that’s not my fault. I didn't write it. I was shocked by how low it was too but upon further consideration I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of where the company actually is right now - hardly any licences and no material revenue. Added to that, it's ChatGPT’s valuation, so it may not even be worth the paper it's written on.
Don't get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to see BrainChip acquired for $20 billion. Heck I reckon everyone would be over the moon! But that simply isn’t achievable unless we start signing licences and generating real revenue. Valuations don’t improve through hope alone, they improve through sales.
You even said yourself that BrainChip is "one of the most painful investments experiences you have had to date" and I didn’t accuse you of being a turn-coat, because I completely empathise with your frustration, as I'm sure many of us here on this forum do.
The reality is that neuromorphic computing has taken far longer to gain traction than most of us expected, and the company has made some missteps along the way. I don’t believe calling out the failings alongside the successes is disloyalty, just as I don’t believe honesty is an act of betrayal.
One final observation talking about valuation-related stuff, because it reminded me of a comment Antonio made at the AGM before last, when he said something along the lines of, “Do you know how much revenue we’d need for the share price to be at one or two dollars?” At the time, I was really annoyed that he said that. But with the benefit of hindsight, I’m starting to see it for what it was - a reality check.
That wasn’t ChatGPT talking. That wasn’t me talking. It was our
Head up tho we have have come along way and it's happening through all the hard digging by yourself and others to keep our spirits alive.
2026 Bravo we are going to win and this bloddy chatty can kiss my arse
.Hi Doz,
Some of these tech billionaires have way more money than cents.
Altman (OpenAI) pledged $50M to Rain AI's initial analog NN design of a spaghetti bowl of self-organizing nanowires, before they switched to digital NN, so this mob have done a sterling con job to raise so much investigating a question that has already been answered. Can't wait for the IPO.
I think our cybersecurity alone will make BRN profitable.
Then we have a whole new field of see-in-the-dark radar that emerged from the USAFRL/RTX micro-doppler SBIR.
.. and we haven't scratched the surface of TENNs capabilities. I think it was Tony Lewis, or it may have been Jonathan Tapson who foreshadowed a coming patent application for more economic memory usage.
As we are painfully aware, such rapid tech advances have their downside in that they push out the date of full commercialization, but I believe we still have a considerable technical lead.
And Akida 1500 is gaining traction with customers like Frontgrade Glaiser, while Bascom Hunter has incorporated 5 Akida 1000s in its 3U VPX SNAP processor board.
The fact that BH uses 5 separate Akidas suggests to me that latency in handling simultaneous events is a primary concern because Akida can multitask using separate models. I imagine that they also provide backup redundancy (possibly with some latency penalty, but tasks can be prioritized).
Then there is Onsor, Arqima, etc ...
So Unconventional AI has done exceptionally well in raising ~ $500m seed funding out of thin air. Peter deliberately eschewed venture capital in setting up Brainchip, but we are a surer bet than UAI.
Selling the company as it is now would be a bad idea.Seriously hoping Chatty’s hallucination engine has completely underestimated this one.
It says " today, the market-clearing outcome is most likely" $550-600 million dollars or 24 - 26 cents per share.
It also gave a "high-conviction" acquisition price range at $780 million – $1 billion dollars which translates to 35 - 44 cents per share, but this is based on the assumption of something material landing that shifts it from “interesting tech” to “must-own IP”.
Best case valuation it gave was 1.18 billion or 53 cents a share.
Looks like I might have to downsize my yacht order from this...
View attachment 93920
to this...
View attachment 93919
ChatGPT 5
You said:
What do you believe would be a plausible acquisition price range currently for BrainChip for a strategic buyer such as Qualcomm, for example.
ChatGPT said:
A plausible acquisition price range for BrainChip (BRN) by a strategic buyer like Qualcomm is best thought of as:
(today’s market cap) × (a takeover premium)
Because BrainChip’s current revenue is tiny relative to its valuation, any real bid would be strategic/IP-driven (team + patents + neuromorphic know-how + “option value”), not conventional EBIT/revenue multiple.
Anchor: BrainChip’s current market value
Recent quotes put BRN around ~A$380m market cap (e.g., ~A$0.17/share). Listcorp
(That number moves daily, so treat it as an anchor, not a constant.)
Typical takeover premium
For Australian public M&A, control premiums commonly land around ~30–50% (often more in hotter/contested deals). Norton Rose Fulbright+2Corrs Chambers Westgarth+2
What that implies in dollars (using ~A$380m as the base)
Base-case strategic takeout (most common): 1.3× to 1.8× market cap
High strategic value / urgency / competing bidders: 2.0× to 2.5×
- ~A$500m to ~A$700m
Blue-sky / “we must own this” / defensively blocking a rival: 3.0×+
- ~A$760m to ~A$950m
- ~A$1.1b+
This can happen, but usually needs a clear trigger (major design win, credible pipeline converting, or a buyer believing the tech meaningfully shifts a big roadmap).Why Qualcomm (or similar) might pay toward the higher end
- They’ve shown willingness to buy strategic silicon/IP capability (e.g., NUVIA was US$1.4B). Qualcomm
- They’re actively expanding into AI compute + data-center adjacent IP (e.g., Alphawave Semi deal reported around US$2.4B). Investopedia+2Yahoo Finance+2
Those aren’t direct comps to BrainChip, but they confirm Qualcomm will pay real money for “missing pieces” in a platform strategy.The big reality check
BrainChip’s cash position and burn matter because a buyer can always “wait them out” if there’s no near-term catalyst (cash balance figures are disclosed in quarterly/4C reporting). Intelligent Investor+1
That dynamic tends to cap premiums unless BrainChip has unmistakable momentum.
My best “plausible” range (today)
If you forced me to give a single practical band that wouldn’t sound ridiculous to either side:
~A$550m to ~A$950m (roughly 1.4× to 2.5× the ~A$380m anchor). Listcorp+2Norton Rose Fulbright+2
If you tell me BRN’s current share price/market cap today (or your own anchor), I’ll re-run the same logic and give you a tighter band in both AUD and USD.
You said:
Market cap is 394 million and share price is .175 cents
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — let’s lock it down with your numbers.
Inputs (confirmed):
Below is a clean, realistic acquisition framework assuming a strategic buyer like Qualcomm (i.e. IP + talent + long-term option value, not current revenue multiples).
- Market cap: A$394m
- Share price: A$0.175
30–50% control premium is very typical for Australian listed tech when there’s no bidding war.
Premium Equity Value Implied Share Price +30% A$512m ~A$0.228 +40% A$552m ~A$0.245 +50% A$591m ~A$0.263
This is the most likely range today if Qualcomm (or similar) decided “we want the IP, the team, and to remove uncertainty”.
This assumes something material has landed, e.g.:
~2.0× – 2.5× market cap
- meaningful design win,
- visible licence revenue inflection,
- strategic defence / automotive validation,
- or Qualcomm sees neuromorphic as defensive IP they don’t want rivals owning.
Multiple Equity Value Implied Share Price 2.0× A$788m ~A$0.35 2.5× A$985m ~A$0.44
This is not fantasy, but it requires a clear strategic trigger.
This is the “we cannot let Nvidia / Intel / Apple / defence primes get this” scenario.
~3× market cap
This only happens if:
Metric Value Equity value ~A$1.18b Share price ~A$0.53
- neuromorphic becomes obviously inevitable in edge/defence, and
- BrainChip is clearly the commercial leader, not just a research play.
Without a near-term catalyst, buyers know BrainChip’s cash runway and can afford to wait — which caps the premium.
That’s why, today, the market-clearing outcome is most likely:
Anything materially above that requires momentum, not hope.
As you chatty said, 1.5 to 2X MC is the norm when companies are bought out, 3X is blue sky scenario.
The purchaser have to justify to their own shareholders the price they paid and why.
We need some good solid IP's secured first before any talks about buy out can be good for BRN shareholders and a much higher SP (MC) than currently. The shareholders of the selling company are deciding if a B.O. offer will be accepted or declined.
The company should start selling IP's before the next AGM, or the CEO will be in trouble (And the BOD), they can't keep on printing shares. Remember, each time they add shares, your investment is hollowed out, you own less of the company on each occasion.
I don't blame Sean but the slow adaption of the edge AI market, everyone are still on about AI data centers despite they are very expensive and extremely energy hungry. Several see a bubble forming regarding them data centers, edge AI has begun and will grow rabidly IMO.
Jensen Huang of Nvidia wants data centers because it suits him and his power hungry chips, but he can not control everything and at some stage he will change his stance.
Nvidia are just adding more and more horsepower, like a muscle car, it not very elegant and comes at a price.
Boom or bubble? Inside the $3tn AI datacentre spending spree
Investment in these vast warehouses is huge but some worry the debt-fuelled exuberance will backfire
Last edited:
Some staff may have officially retired, but old habits die hard, I know of two former staffers who work for free, why, because they have the sort of personalities that don't revolve around greed, and I for one feel blessed that they both care about helping Brainchip achieve everyones dream.
Integrity remains a central focal point of our company, be grateful, rather than selfish, it's never been all about you, it's always been all about Akida
Integrity remains a central focal point of our company, be grateful, rather than selfish, it's never been all about you, it's always been all about Akida
Earlyrelease
Regular
Evening all and hope xmas was full of family time and big things are planned for 2026.
Whilst there is a frustration tone amongst the long termers it is understandable. My frustrations are that I got greedy with Mercedes and didnt sell a small parcel to be free carried and now, like Dodgy knees, will likely go down with the ship if widescale adoption (sales) is further out than previously hoped.
However we do have one hurdle ahead of us. The third Friday in March 2026 will see the ASX300 rebalance occur. I think we were outside last September but stayed in, but now, not sure with the price heading in the wrong direction, that will be the case in March.
According to Market Index we are at the moment 610/2319 on the ASX rankings and are ranked 37/252 in the sector (https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx/brn?src=search-all)
Obviously a rebalance of the ASX 300 will see intuitional investments (compelled to) sell shares of those companies leaving and buy into those new companies entering. Thus creating lots of fluidity. (see below)
Lets hope that we have some news that pops our head back into the ASX300 limit to remain otherwise we may have another hiatus where the shares are hammered and shorters thrive. In addition if that was to occur then I also see the bonus not being paid to the CEO (if the $9m sales aren't shown) and one would have to question the continuance of the CEO as I believe his 5yr contract expires in Nov 2026 (Started Nov 2021).
Anyway let hope the above scenario doesn't play out, the specific amount of $9m was a realistic target based on prior engagements and we do get some tit bits in January and February to get the share price moving north.
For those Perth people enjoy the milder weather and have an excellent NYE.
However, it is worth noting just how often they are rebalanced. While some are done quarterly, others are done semi-annually or annually.
The S&P/ASX 20, S&P/ASX 50, S&P/ASX 100, S&P/ASX 200, S&P/ASX All Australian 50, and S&P/ASX All Australian 200 indices are all rebalanced quarterly.
The rebalancing happens on market close on the third Friday of March, June, September, and December.
“On these days, due to the rebalance, the turnover in terms of dollar value traded on ASX and globally is vastly above normal,” Hannah said.
“If a company is coming in or out of the ASX 200, it will affect the share price.”
The market is informed of the upcoming changes one week in advance, or two weeks in the case of the September change.
The AXS 300 is re-balanced semi-annually, effective after the market close on the third Friday of March and September.
The All ordinaries is re-balanced only once annually in the March quarter, which means a significant number of additions and removals.
Hannah said if companies are added to an index or multiple ones it presents a range of opportunities and if removed the repercussions can be significant. Companies can find themselves added or removed from ETFs and funds tracking indices.
“Rebalances present massive liquidity events in markets, as all ETF providers are looking to trade their portfolio to match the updated indices,” he said.
He said ETF providers will aim to trade the changes on the close of the rebalance day.
“However, if the position to be traded is so large that it cannot it be filled on the actual re-balance day, then the fund manager will be required to trade over multiple days,” he said.
“The implication is that if a share is coming in or out of an index, it might see sustained buying or selling pressure which can impact the share price.”
The Vanguard Australian Shares Index (ASX:VAS) seeks to replicate the index.
Vanguard Asia Pacific chief investment officer Duncan Burns told Stockhead full replication is the purest form of indexing, where an index manager holds all the securities in the portfolio at or close to their index weight.
“For instance, at the recent balance on March 18 VAS, Vanguard’s $28bn flagship Australian shares fund/ETF fund held all 301 (yes, 301 that occasionally happens) lines of the ASX 300 benchmark at or very close to benchmark weight, give or take 0.01% to 0.02% at the security level,” Burns said.
“So starting at the top of the ASX, you have the major banks and miners with a market cap of hundreds of billions, all the way down to the last few securities of the 300, with a market cap of around one billion.
“As a result, VAS contains all 300 securities (or 301 securities for accuracy as at March 18) in percentages according to their market cap.”
Whilst there is a frustration tone amongst the long termers it is understandable. My frustrations are that I got greedy with Mercedes and didnt sell a small parcel to be free carried and now, like Dodgy knees, will likely go down with the ship if widescale adoption (sales) is further out than previously hoped.
However we do have one hurdle ahead of us. The third Friday in March 2026 will see the ASX300 rebalance occur. I think we were outside last September but stayed in, but now, not sure with the price heading in the wrong direction, that will be the case in March.
According to Market Index we are at the moment 610/2319 on the ASX rankings and are ranked 37/252 in the sector (https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx/brn?src=search-all)
Obviously a rebalance of the ASX 300 will see intuitional investments (compelled to) sell shares of those companies leaving and buy into those new companies entering. Thus creating lots of fluidity. (see below)
Lets hope that we have some news that pops our head back into the ASX300 limit to remain otherwise we may have another hiatus where the shares are hammered and shorters thrive. In addition if that was to occur then I also see the bonus not being paid to the CEO (if the $9m sales aren't shown) and one would have to question the continuance of the CEO as I believe his 5yr contract expires in Nov 2026 (Started Nov 2021).
Anyway let hope the above scenario doesn't play out, the specific amount of $9m was a realistic target based on prior engagements and we do get some tit bits in January and February to get the share price moving north.
For those Perth people enjoy the milder weather and have an excellent NYE.
The great ASX rebalancing act, and how it can impact share prices - Stockhead
ASX rebalancing can have a major impact on a stock's performance. We look at how the ASX indices are re-balanced and the implications.
stockhead.com.au
The great ASX rebalancing act, and how it can impact share prices - Stockhead
ASX rebalancing can have a major impact on a stock's performance. We look at how the ASX indices are re-balanced and the implications.
stockhead.com.au
Rebalancing indices
Exact methodology for inclusion in certain indexes and rebalancing is quite complex considering a range of factors including market cap and liquidity and can also be found on the S&P Global website.However, it is worth noting just how often they are rebalanced. While some are done quarterly, others are done semi-annually or annually.
The S&P/ASX 20, S&P/ASX 50, S&P/ASX 100, S&P/ASX 200, S&P/ASX All Australian 50, and S&P/ASX All Australian 200 indices are all rebalanced quarterly.
The rebalancing happens on market close on the third Friday of March, June, September, and December.
“On these days, due to the rebalance, the turnover in terms of dollar value traded on ASX and globally is vastly above normal,” Hannah said.
“If a company is coming in or out of the ASX 200, it will affect the share price.”
The market is informed of the upcoming changes one week in advance, or two weeks in the case of the September change.
The AXS 300 is re-balanced semi-annually, effective after the market close on the third Friday of March and September.
The All ordinaries is re-balanced only once annually in the March quarter, which means a significant number of additions and removals.
Winds of change
The indices change and evolve as do companies change and evolve. Companies that grow can find themselves added to indices, while ones which shrink removed.Hannah said if companies are added to an index or multiple ones it presents a range of opportunities and if removed the repercussions can be significant. Companies can find themselves added or removed from ETFs and funds tracking indices.
“Rebalances present massive liquidity events in markets, as all ETF providers are looking to trade their portfolio to match the updated indices,” he said.
He said ETF providers will aim to trade the changes on the close of the rebalance day.
“However, if the position to be traded is so large that it cannot it be filled on the actual re-balance day, then the fund manager will be required to trade over multiple days,” he said.
“The implication is that if a share is coming in or out of an index, it might see sustained buying or selling pressure which can impact the share price.”
The all important S&P/ASX 300 index
TheS&P/ASX 300 is a significant index. It is one that many fund managers or investors use as a cutoff for investments. Entering the S&P/ASX 300 can be a major milestone for companies, signifying they have actually entered the big league.The Vanguard Australian Shares Index (ASX:VAS) seeks to replicate the index.
Vanguard Asia Pacific chief investment officer Duncan Burns told Stockhead full replication is the purest form of indexing, where an index manager holds all the securities in the portfolio at or close to their index weight.
“For instance, at the recent balance on March 18 VAS, Vanguard’s $28bn flagship Australian shares fund/ETF fund held all 301 (yes, 301 that occasionally happens) lines of the ASX 300 benchmark at or very close to benchmark weight, give or take 0.01% to 0.02% at the security level,” Burns said.
“So starting at the top of the ASX, you have the major banks and miners with a market cap of hundreds of billions, all the way down to the last few securities of the 300, with a market cap of around one billion.
“As a result, VAS contains all 300 securities (or 301 securities for accuracy as at March 18) in percentages according to their market cap.”
Similar threads
