Member Info for TerrorWit

Kooba and Nanonano are now spinning the results as confirmation of their narrative. Kooba focuses on the cash runway and the shift from "2027" to "medium term." Nanonano claims I’ve been "way off beam."

But the facts are clear: the JDAs are moving, the cost base is reduced, the company is still executing. And both the Edison and Cavendish broker notes are positive.

Kooba, I said last week that I was expecting an unexciting confirmation of continued progress, not fireworks. That's exactly what we got. The JDAs are moving, the cost base is reduced, and the cash is there.

As for the Edison note, yes, it's paid for — they disclose that. But it's not "marketing material" in the pejorative way you're implying. It's a balanced research note produced under FCA rules that highlights both the progress and the risks. You can dismiss it if you want, but the facts remain.

If Nanoco continues to execute, everything will be alright. We don't need anyone's constant amateur reinterpretations.

It appears you spend your entire awareness repositioning everything that contradicts your certainties.

Wise people admit what they don’t know, hold uncertainties and remain porous to new perspectives, especially those that question their own but you’re unremittingly impervious. That’s not a healthy, sustainable or successful strategy.

My observation is that you twist everyone else’s takes to fit your self image.

Thats not expertise, it’s insecurity.

… Says the univested one who spends all his days talking down other people’s investments. Pure projection.

I wish I were clever enough to find the quip that would shut you trolls up once and for all. But the truth is, you're all too deep in your own self‑destruction.

No one reading this forum will find any of it useful.

If you can bring yourself to provide an adult, constructive comment I'd welcome that.

Nanonano is using a true statement ("we're close to commercialisation") as evidence of failure, when it was actually a prediction of the infringement that would later generate $155m.

When the CEO said that a decade ago, they were right. Samsung was already using the technology. The fact that they used it without paying doesn't make the statement wrong — it makes Samsung an infringer.

The commercialisation was happening; Nanoco just wasn't getting paid for it yet. That's why the litigation happened and why the nine‑figure settlements were paid.

As for Monday, I'm expecting a confirmation of continued progress, not fireworks. If anything material had changed, we'd already know. The settlement, the cleared sensing path, the internship ads, the trade presentations — all point to a business that is proceeding normally, comfortable and steady in its execution as previously guided.

Nanoco has referenced Yole — a respected research company and a legitimate source. But they never said Yole's forecast was a guarantee. It's a third‑party projection, not a promise. Yole can't predict the future any more than anyone else.

If anyone tries to hold Nanoco to Yole's numbers as if they were a binding commitment, they're making a category error. Even the best forecast is just an estimate. Markets often develop slower than predicted. That's not failure — that's reality.

I don't think anyone is selling quantum dot sensors in scaled‑up quantities yet.

That's the core irony. Kooba accuses me of not checking, yet he didn't check his own source — a <1‑year‑old domain selling expensive junk marketing reports. I provided verifiable WHOIS data and a hyperlink. He provided insults.

I forensically checked out the £327m number you gave and, using WHOIS data, found it originated from a recently‑registered site selling fake market reports.

You haven’t bought one have you?

Kooba has no counter‑argument to the deconstruction — just personal attacks.

That’s what happens to performative posters when they rely on trumped up authorities who can’t even predict the past accurately.

Allow me to deconstruct Kooba's claims

Claim 1: "Nanoco have used exactly these market commentaries before and featured them in their presentations as guidance on the market they operate in."

Fact: Even if Nanoco has cited industry projections (which is normal), that doesn't make a specific third‑party report authoritative. The $327m figure comes from Market Intelo — according to Whois.com that’s a domain registered on 30 May 2025, that’s 322 days ago. This is not a credible research house. It's a sales operation selling expensive reports.

Claim 2: "The growth in quantum dot usage and revenues have not translated into commercial revenues for Nanoco."

Fact: The market for quantum dot sensors is still nascent. Asking why Nanoco has no revenue from a market that barely exists yet is like asking why a farmer has no harvest in winter.

Claim 3: "You were editing a proposed question on how Nanoco sees the market emerging... where would they get any figures from to answer other than making them up or using such reports as they have before."

Fact: That's exactly the point. Kooba wants granular market forecasts, but then dismisses the only sources available (industry reports) as unreliable. He's setting an impossible standard. The company can't give him numbers he'd accept.

Claim 4: "Whatever [CFQD revenues] were, Nanoco got no commercial revenues and they are the self‑declared leader in the field."

Fact: The JDAs are development agreements, not commercial supply contracts. They are the path to future revenue, not the revenue itself. Confusing the two is a category error.

Conclusion: Kooba is quoting a <1‑year‑old sales brochure as if it's gospel, ignoring that the market is nascent, and demanding instant results from a long‑term development cycle. Monday's results will tell us where Nanoco actually stands. That's what matters.

Perhaps Kooba is just agitating. Again.

Kooba, that $327m figure comes from a commercial market research firm (Market Intelo).

https://marketintelo.com/report/swir-quantum-dot-camera-market

These reports are essentially paid‑for industry projections you to raise funds into the marketing — they’re not official statistics, they weren’t quoted by Nanoco. They're useful for directional trends, but they're not a baseline for what any single company "should" have captured. You’re trying to beat the company with a stick it never subscribed to.

The JDAs are aimed at future commercialisation, not current sales. The forecast is for 2033, not 2024. So asking "what part of the 2024 market did we get?" misses the point entirely.

If you want to know where Nanoco is today, the interim results on Monday will tell us. Guessing based on a consultant's model doesn't.

A better way to put that question might be to

"What is the company's current estimate of the total addressable market for its second‑generation sensing materials over the next five years, and what share of that market does Nanoco realistically expect to capture based on its existing JDAs and competitive position?"

I am sure they will answer all those questions anyway, Smithy. Here’s a question I might submit.

"What value did the board assign to the Shoei settlement, and why was a reciprocal cross‑license (rather than a cash payment or unilateral license) considered sufficient and in the best interests of shareholders?"

Not that your continual pathetic insults deserve an answer, but the key insight you're overlooking is that your many grievances are already in the price.

The question isn't what happened before. It's what happens next — if the company executes.

Rational investors look forward. You look backwards.

Nanonano is back to the same loop: listing past partnerships that didn't lead to commercial supply — ignoring that those relationships were part of the technology's development and validation.

He's also ignoring that the company's financial position is now stronger. He doesn't want answers. He just wants to repeat his grievances.

From LinkedIn - a small signal. Nanoco is recruiting — actively building its R&D team for the summer. That's not the behaviour of a company winding down or running out of cash. It's the behaviour of a company expecting to execute.

🚀 Summer Internship Opportunities – Join Our R&D Team in Runcorn, Cheshire (UK)! 🔬

We’re excited to offer 2x hands-on summer internship opportunities for 2nd or 3rd year university students studying Chemistry or a related scientific discipline.

If you're eager to gain real-world lab experience, we’d love to hear from you.

🧪 R&D Chemistry Summer Intern Opportunity

What you’ll do:

🟠Work in a chemical laboratory within a quantum dot (QD) manufacturing environment

🟠Prepare and test QD samples to support ongoing product development projects

🟠Collaborate with experienced chemists and gain practical lab skills

What we offer:

🟡 Hands-on lab experience

🟡 Training and mentorship from our talented senior chemists

🟡 Exposure to cutting-edge materials and technologies

⚙️ R&D Device Engineering Summer Intern Opportunity

What you’ll do:

🟠Work in a device fabrication laboratory within a QD manufacturing environment

🟠Support the preparation and testing of prototype devices

🟠Operate and maintain laboratory test equipment

🟠Contribute to innovative technology development initiatives

What we offer:

🟡 Practical experience in device engineering and prototyping

🟡 Training on advanced lab equipment

🟡 Training and mentorship from our talented device team

🟡 Opportunity to work on real-world technology challenges

💡 Who should apply?

🟢 2nd or 3rd year undergraduate students with eligibility to work /study in the UK

🟢Studying Chemistry, Materials Science, Physics, Engineering, or a related field

🟢Motivated, curious, and eager to learn

📩 Interested?

Apply now or reach out for more information at hr@nanocotechnologies.com

🔴 Please note, visa sponsorships are unavailable for these opportunities

#Internship #SummerInternship #Chemistry #Engineering #R&D #Students #STEM #quantumdots #qd #qdtechnology #science 🟠