Member Info for Feeks

My opinion - not good enough. They shifted the reporting period without which it would look much worse. There is too much expectation for the product approvals that will likely take years to build decent revenues.

Ex, the point you make is weak. ZIOC will not get built with 30% dilution. Pure fantasy. I would be worried about the lack of end game in your Trumpian plans, but for the fact there is so much suppositon in the alleged grievances. The wrecking crew seems not to have any substantial grievances from what I can see. You would be better seeking information on what we don't know. Good luck, I guess, but I fear the worst because you've not shown me a benefit to this action.

1.5m went through at 5.266p late on. Buy? Hard to tell if its a buy or a sell.

Please yourself, but it is opaque behaviour which further erodes your ceedibilty (if you have any left).

Thought you didn't do ad hominem, or was that only last week?

So, so predictable

You are the devoted poster boy for this company so holding you to account - but no surprise you wouldn't answer a simple question. You much prefer the wriggle room..... and will be telling us you held no shares or a tiny amount when it all goes wrong (the possibility of a fantastic outcome should be discounted IMO).

TW, good morning.

A simple straight question for you to start the day:

Do you actually hold shares in this company, and if you do, would you please care to divulge the scale of your investment (relatively and/ or in overall portfolio terms), i.e. whether it is only a tiny fraction on an amount which is much more significant. I am genuinely interested.

My take, as you know, is that we are seeing the dying embers unfold and only foolish investors would not see that. But perhaps a moment to reflect is good for all.

Thank you.

For TW's "execution" READ "continue to operate the company in research and development mode until the money is spent"

The balance sheet doesn't lie.

(Sage advice for the uninitiated and/or easily led.

Rational investors read the balance sheet, TW!

You seem overly fixated on what the company tells you, which is a sure fire way to lose all of your investment. The fact that you chose to highlight the advert for two internship roles is some sort of joke, surely ....!?

JBongo - TW's postings are a constant source of amusement to many, including myself.

L2Play - it drives engagement/ user traffic so LSE won't care - indeed, it will be happy.

TW

You show yourself up time and again with poor judgement, aided and abetted by AI which is certainly not the fountain of all knowledge as you seem to believe.

The regualtory issue is a self standing requirment. What is logical (as you put it) is not a substitute test for 'as soon as reasonably practicable'. Enforcement is totally separate.

As ypu seem to take all your views unfiltered from AI it is not surprising that so much of what you say is prone to error and miscontruction, and certainly a lack of effective judgement.

They DID get away with it, TW! And then they settled! Depsite your protestations, itigation is not a replicable model for Nanoco. You were trying to tell us it was a carefully crafted strategy to get Shoei on the hoollk - utter nonsense! Nanoco cannot afford to get embrolied in expensive IP suits.

Yep, but that's only half the story. It is a highly material point in terms of the investment case in view of where matters stand today.

Scaling new technology often fails at the commercialisation stage, where the high cost of establishing a reliable, replicable manufacturing process becomes prohibitive even for bigger players (who are often the most cost conscious)

I've been saying this for the past 3 years Magic orb!!

The comparison to Walt Disney is not so far off the mark when we've got Mickey Mouse in the room.

You need to consider Market Abuse Regulations. There isn't a material royalty. The company would have to justify the secrecy, but if there was, any spike in the Share price will force the company to release an RNS.

We could be just about to witness history repeat itself....!! (with even more egg on your face...)

You are so wrong. Plus, y7ou don't believe that

Terrorwit,

I'm interested what you envisage happening for Nanoco to 'execute' its business plan. More importantly, how do you currently rate the prospects of success, by which I mean Nanoco developing into a profitable company in 2027. Best wishes.

4.84p!!!

Good grief.

What's the market missing, Terrorwit?

Https://www.eplaneai.com/news/airbus-helicopters-and-ge-to-continue-joint-research-collaboration

The partnership has now entered its second phase, which will concentrate on refining detailed engine design concepts and assessing efficiencies at the component level.