Member Info for chase1

AI is no longer a toy; it’s a skill that is actively taught in schools and used throughout the professional world. It belongs in the same category as learning to use Excel, email, or search engines. You need to understand how it works rather than treating it like some kind of magic trick. AI doesn’t “think.” It’s trained on massive amounts of text and uses pattern recognition to generate answers. At its core, it’s a summarization machine. And like any GIGO system — garbage in, garbage out — if you ask poor questions or copy the output blindly, you’ll get low‑quality results. The real issue isn’t the technology itself, but how people use it. More and more users flood forums with generic, unverified AI output and act as if they’ve accomplished something special by “asking AI.” As if no one else knows how to type a prompt. The result is a wave of repetitive, shallow, and often incorrect content. This fits into a broader trend: endless clickbait on YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms. Staged or AI‑generated content created purely for the sake of producing content, meant to keep people scrolling. It’s digital bread and circuses. AI can be useful, but only when used with critical thinking, context, and actual understanding. Without that, it becomes just another source of noise in a world already overflowing with it.

May 2026 be a year in which the offer from SolGold shows that they carry the well‑being of our PIs in their hearts. And may a moment soon arise in which all planets align, allowing a new offer to present itself—one that causes the offer from JJC to melt away like snow beneath the Chinese sun.

Well, that’s the spirit. Whatever people think of ENET, here’s to a healthier 2026 for everyone — and hopefully a share price chart that finally remembers how to point in the other direction. Fresh year, fresh sentiment, fresh chance for the company to actually deliver. Cheers to a turnaround, in the markets and in life.

If you only look at the fundraising history, sure, it’s easy to paint the picture of a company wandering around the telecom landscape for two decades. But that ignores the reality of how deep‑tech semiconductor companies actually evolve. They don’t scale like a fish‑and‑chips shop because they’re not selling cod and vinegar; they’re building IP blocks that take years to validate, certify, integrate, and deploy. Yes, they’ve raised around $60M over a long period. But that money didn’t vanish into thin air — it produced: silicon‑proven IP now deployed in over a million OEM units, multiple ASICs completed for paying customers, Tier‑1 PON deployments with repeat orders, a U.S. defence platform already shipping, new patents in low‑latency routing and deterministic networking, U.S. Government approval for defence and aerospace sales, a technology stack that can be monetised via FPGA, ASIC, and ASSP, If the company had truly “tried every telecom avenue under the sun” with nothing to show for it, you wouldn’t see Tier‑1 customers integrating their IP into real products. Those companies don’t waste time on science projects. Has the commercial execution been slow? Absolutely. Has management over‑promised at times? No argument there. But pretending the output of twenty years is equivalent to a corner takeaway’s revenue streamis just a punchline — not an analysis. The technology is real. The customers are real. The revenue problem is execution, not capability.

You can quote Blackadder all you like, but that comparison only works if nothing has changed in eight years — and that simply isn’t true. The early RNSs were full of promises; the recent ones are full of deliverables. There’s a difference between marketing noise and actual Tier‑1 deployments, ASIC tape‑outs, royalty streams, and defence platforms shipping into the field. If we were still stuck in the “asthmatic ant with heavy shopping bags” phase, you wouldn’t see: a million‑unit OEM deployment, a second ASIC completed, a Tier‑1 PON customer pre‑ordering more licenses, a U.S. defence vendor shipping a product based on ENET IP, new low‑latency patents and FPGA platforms being adopted, That’s not trench‑warfare‑level stagnation — that’s slow, painful, but very real progress in a niche semiconductor market where design cycles are measured in years, not weeks. You can criticise Levi for over‑optimism or poor communication, fair enough. But pretending the company is in the same place it was eight years ago is just rewriting history for dramatic effect. The technology has moved forward; the share price hasn’t. Those are two very different things.

If the product’s quality were directly reflected in the share price, half of today’s major tech companies would never have made it past their early years. A microcap’s SP almost never tracks the quality of its technology. It tracks risk, cash position, dilution, sentiment, and market confidence — not engineering merit. AIM stocks in particular can trade at absurdly low valuations even when the underlying IP is solid, simply because: the free float is tiny, sellers dominate the order book, institutions stay away, past financing issues overshadow current progress, trust in management is low, the market prices in worst‑case scenarios, None of that tells you whether the product works. Tier‑1 customers don’t buy bad technology. Defence vendors don’t certify bad technology. OEMs don’t ship a million units with bad technology. The share price reflects fear and history, not technical capability.

Summary in 10 bullets last RNS;

Ethernity is expanding its product line with a new low‑latency FPGA‑based switching and routing architecture aimed at Defence, Aerospace, IoT, and 5G/6G markets.

The U.S. Government has officially approved the sale of this technology to American defence and aerospace vendors, opening a significant commercial channel.

Low‑latency networking is becoming mission‑critical as industries move toward deterministic, time‑sensitive, high‑fidelity data flows.

The new solution combines ultra‑low latency, deep buffering, TSN‑like deterministic flows, and Layer‑1 bonding, giving Ethernity a unique position in niche high‑performance markets.

Defence vendors are shifting to Ethernet‑based FPGA architectures, which aligns perfectly with Ethernity’s existing technology and customer base.

The low‑latency switch will become part of Ethernity’s secure, deterministic communication suite, directly relevant to Tier‑1 U.S. defence customers.

The technology builds on Ethernity’s existing IP, including deterministic ingress datapaths, low‑latency LPM engines (recently patented), and TSN‑style traffic control.

The FPGA version targets near‑term commercial opportunities, while the same architecture can later be converted into an ASIC, enabling larger volumes and royalty‑based revenue.

CEO David Levi highlights growing royalty streams from the long‑standing OEM customer and the Tier‑1 PON customer, plus successful deployment by the Tier‑1 defence customer.

The company expects that low‑latency products + the ASSP program will support positive cash flow and a return to profitability, contrasting with the long investment cycles of the old business model.

Stating something as ‘FACT’ doesn’t make it one. If you’re referring to the last published accounts, they show limited revenue — that part is clear. But ‘no meaningful revenues’ is still an interpretation unless you quote the actual figures from the filings. If you want to discuss the numbers, let’s use the audited data, not slogans.

Nonsense’ isn’t a rebuttal. Try facts.

We also need to keep in mind that the market has dropped around 99% since 01/01/2025. Any interpretation of the current price or sentiment has to be viewed through that lens.

A placing is forward‑looking in the sense that it funds future operations, not because it confirms completed contracts. Placings are used by countless early‑stage tech companies to bridge the gap between development and revenue — that’s not unusual. Saying that a placing ‘proves there is no meaningful income’ is an interpretation, not a fact stated in any RNS. The only accurate statement is that placings dilute existing shareholders. Everything beyond that — especially conclusions about the absence of future revenue — is speculation unless the company publishes it

Skid, No need for theatrics — I’m simply looking at what’s actually documented. The company has not published any RNS stating that Tarana orders have ended, nor have they published new ones. Without an official filing, claiming they ‘don’t exist’ or ‘are doing badly’ is speculation, not fact. Reading the accounts is important, but calling it a ‘complete failure’ is your interpretation, not something stated in any audited filing. The numbers show challenges, yes, but they don’t support the absolute language you’re using. I’m sticking to what the company has actually published, not to assumptions or emotional conclusions.

I appreciate the support, but I’m not here to label anyone. I’m just trying to discuss the actual filings and facts. If others want to turn it into a personal vendetta, that’s their choice — I’ll stick to the data.

You’re presenting assumptions as if they’re confirmed facts. The RNS filings do not list any ‘contract wins’ because the company hasn’t published them — but that doesn’t mean Levi ‘claimed’ wins in the placings. Placings are forward‑looking by nature, not confirmations of completed contracts. Saying the technology is ‘obsolete’ is your interpretation, not something stated in any official filing. There is no RNS saying that ‘larger players have walked away’ or that multinationals refuse to sign with ENET. That’s speculation, not documented information. If we want to analyse the situation properly, we should stick to what the company has actually published, not fill in the gaps with worst‑case assumptions.

I understand the frustration, but sweeping statements like ‘it’s over’ aren’t supported by any official filing. Yes, the company has had setbacks — that’s not in dispute — but the claim that ‘customers have gone elsewhere’ or that there are ‘no contract wins’ is not something the company has ever stated in an RNS. If we’re going to analyse the situation honestly, we need to separate disappointment from documented facts. People can choose to be pessimistic, but that doesn’t turn speculation into evidence.

I do read all the RNS releases — including the language, the context, and the implications. But there’s a difference between analysing what the company actually publishes and filling the gaps with assumptions. I’m not ‘accepting everything DL says’ — I’m simply basing my comments on the official filings rather than speculation. If we want a clear picture, we should rely on what’s documented, not on interpretations of what might be ‘between the lines’.

Skid, I understand the analogy, but we should stick to what is actually documented rather than assuming internal drama. Nowhere in any RNS does ENET state that Tarana ‘refused to renew’ or ‘went to a competitor’. That interpretation may fit your narrative, but it is not supported by any official filing. Yes, ENET invested heavily in components for the larger contracts, but the claim that they ‘received not a cent’ is not stated in any RNS either. The company reported delivery issues and delays, not a formal declaration of total non‑payment. Calling it a ‘complete failure’ is your wording, not the company’s. The RNS language matters — and it was far more measured than what you’re presenting here. I’m happy to discuss the real filings and the real numbers, but we should separate what the company actually published from assumptions about what might have happened behind closed doors.

I understand the accounts just fine — I’m quoting the numbers that come from the official filings, not assumptions or interpretations. ENET did RNS issues with certain contracts, but nowhere did they state ‘complete failure’ in the way you’re presenting it. The language in the RNS matters. Massive dilution happened because the company needed funding — that part is not in dispute. But dilution doesn’t automatically prove your narrative about the contracts.

Broker/NOMAD notes are not audited filings. They can be useful, but they are not the same as an RNS and shouldn’t be treated as such. As for Tarana: ENET never stated in any RNS that Tarana was ‘locked in’ or ‘unable to go elsewhere’. That was interpretation from calls, not a contractual statement. Unless someone here has access to Tarana’s internal procurement decisions, claiming they ‘told ENET where to go’ is speculation, not fact. I’m happy to discuss the real numbers and the real filings, but let’s separate verified information from assumptions and emotion.

“No pink specs here — just sticking to the actual numbers and the official filings.”

“I get the concerns, but let’s keep the discussion grounded in facts. Volatility after spikes is normal for any low‑liquidity microcap — it doesn’t automatically make it a pump‑and‑dump. And yes, the cash figure came from Allenby, but a broker research note is not the same as an official RNS. If we want to analyse ENET properly, we should separate verified filings from analyst commentary and speculation.”

“It looks like some people are shaking the tree a bit — I’m seeing some sizeable sells coming through.”