Member Info for skid35

Pmason. Just to confirm there is no "expected" semi conductor contract.

JP, agreed it wasn't mentioned in the RNS, just that salaries were deferred. Clearly they received part of their salaries as cash for the period under question.

The supplier thing is a really weird. Why accept shares when you can buy more in the open market, unless the invoices are subject to dispute and this is part of the settlement. I can only see these sub contractors being involved in product development rather than the office supplies / cleaner etc - hopefully a good thing but maybe reading too much into this.

Always amazed that investors with deep knowledge of the smallest mining companies in deepest congo / peru (which i know absolutely nothing about) flock to ENET every few months with their deep knowledge in another sector.

Janiax - didnt realise this was a PYX board

Janiax.

"if the licence is renewed" ?

What are you talking about. The licences producing the tiny couple of hundred $k a year royalty income will be evergreen, there is no renewal with a one off fee attached which can be recognised as income.

Iceman.

It is not producing anything that is in strong demand that provides material $$, and is massively loss making and non recurrent.

They need to get the warrants in with real new business, not the ridiculous RNS with no real news, to get decent cash. At the moment they are back down to a few months (again).

I've had large $ shareholdings in US companies I have worked in on cashing in options. If they were serious they would not take a salary at all and agree shares when the share price is about 3x where it is.

Red, its called work, you should try it sometime.

Https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/LON:ENET/Ethernity-Networks-Ltd/timeline/videos

Didn't realise they were still there. Best pick a random one, the level of delusion is hilarious.

Finger - Ilan was quite polished with his US/Nasdaq background, and he left ENET about a year ago with that $45m qualified pipeline.

Anyone thinking that an interview with Levi will spark some large re rate clearly hasn't heard Levi communicate. On proactive, where he is telling them the questions to ask, in the past he seems to have forgotten what he told them to ask and seems unprepared to answer them - a complete and total clown.

Not surprised they have deleted past interviews, the one after the second fake chinese order when he said they were at the finish line was a corker.

Absolutely nothing points to nvidia.

An interesting read but doesn't really say much or really change where ENET are - RNSing $200k is pretty pitiful and show the level of news that ENET consider and RNS for. Firstly the $1.3m last year is not a licence agreement, to state as such is a very deliberate intention to mislead. So more low value, low margin NRE for pre IPO products to cover a proportion of their monthly costs, they really do need a platform licence agreement to have any real impact.

No movement on any of the post IPO merry-go-round of new six monthly opportunities which are dropped. Anyone who thinks there is an asic or any material deal around the corner will be sadly disappointed (again)

Goulding really has been completely out of his depth for years and years. Amazed he wasnt given the push years ago.

Seems to have just moved jobs.

Ian. Under listing requirements they simply have to disclose this, they will not have audited accounts.

Interesting change in posts in the last two weeks.

No posters that there will be a deal or on any underlying business performance , just it's gone up in the past on nothing and will do again. Only winner is DL and the board on their con artist salaries.

Belgrano.

There is no black and white here, the income recognition follows the contract and delivery at a point in time. Reading between the lines I think the issue is around minimum order quantities and carry forward / "sale or return right of recovery" type clause - as well as a probable side agreement to the initial contract which was not disclosed.

The customer does not have to have used / manufactured / sold a minimum order quantity even if it is carried forward for income to be recognised.

I could do a write up of the accounting on this contract in a morning, if you understand the IFRS and contract its not hard. On this either 1. SA withheld information, a side agreement over riding or clarifying the contract, or had adjusted communication from the customer 2. there are other issues.

Either way they need new auditors who will place no reliance on the existing audit work and start from stratch.

Sounds like NTT to me.

1. Directors are not buying in, it is in lieu of quite ridiculous salaries which have no relation to performance since IPO

2. Revenue is incredibly poor quality for 2025, the 2026 is an estimate which DL hasnt got a track record in. Basing valuation on income isnt appropriate when it is poor quality, primarily non recurring and loss making

3. Cash assumed new contracts, or at least an uptick in volume based royalties.

The inclusion of the discounted cash flow from royalties in NAV a little weird. Firstly there must be a high degree of certainty of both the value and timing, second I see it as revenue income rather than investment income. Interesting to read the notes to the accounts when they come out.