Member Info for TerrorWit

Typical bullies — you can spend your lives online hiding behind nicknames and keyboards, insulting everyone, undermining other people's investments, and complaining in the bitterest terms. But you can't take a joke if it's at your own expense.

You all take yourselves far too seriously. Silent readers will agree.

… just like Kooba, obviously.

No doubt Nanonano will soon be informing us that he’s a porn actor.

Nanonano, you list recent events as negatives — but the CDX process ended because the board wouldn't sell at a low price. Senior departures were part of a cost‑cutting pivot. The settlement cleared the sensing path and contained confidential clauses about which you know nothing,

If you have an answer from the company that contradicts me, post it. Otherwise, it's just another speculative claim.

Nanonano must believe he's providing a valuable service. He's cast himself as the hero of his own story — the lone voice of reason, the sceptic who sees through the hype, the protector of the naive.

He doesn't see the damage he does, because he's not looking for outcomes. He's looking for validation. This forum gives him that.

Nanonano is now trying to frame my "naturally stupid" comment as a personal attack, ignoring the weeks of personal attacks directed at me. It's a classic reversal: when you finally respond in kind, he cries foul.

That's hypocrisy and I'm not the one who spent years denegrating an investement several times a day that hundreds, if not thousands, of small retail investors, just like him chose. You don't get to be much more foolish than that.

….. No one needs artificial intelligence to make you lot seem naturally stupid.

Sil ent readers can see who's discussing the company and who's attacking the person because they re triggered by truths

Kooba, I'm not here to compare investment records. I'm here to discuss the company.

Unlike some, I'm ready to take responsibility if my investment fails — not blame the company, the board, or anyone else - several times every day, year after year.

If you want to attack my personal performance, you're proving my point about performative posting. I don't fake expertise, like you, but I do know something about business direction and litigating IP.

Yes, that might happen. Don't like risk? Put your money in a building socierty and get over yourself.

Nanonano is back to the same loop: "why didn't they win the business?" The answer has been given multiple times: customers preferred larger suppliers because of supply chain risk, not because the technology was inferior. He's not looking for an answer — he's looking to repeat his grievance.

Feeks misses the point. Patents are only as strong as the willingness to enforce them. Litigation is how they get tested and validated — and for valuable patents, it's almost inevitable.

Nanoco's lawsuits weren't a sign of failure. They were the process of turning sought after IP into real value. Anyone who thought valuable patents wouldn't be challenged was naive.

Nanonano is now defending his speculation as based on an old company figure — but that doesn't make it any less speculative.

He’s trying to hold the company to figures they gave as forward guidance with all the associated warnings as if they were personal guarantees - a fundamental misunderstanding of how guidance works.

Nanonano is also listing uncertainties — which is fine, because uncertainty is the nature of investing in a pre‑commercial technology. The difference is that he treats uncertainty as certainty of failure. Investors treat it as a risk they’ve already accepted in order to make a profit

Nanonano is now speculating about what a licensing deal could have been worth using a figure from more than a decade ago.

Nanonano is now shifting his argument: $155m is "far short" of what they could have earned. That's speculation — he has no idea what a supply agreement would have been worth. He's also ignoring that the legal fees were part of the cost of enforcing the IP, and the net result was still substantial.

FlyingHigher is asking why Shoei wouldn't go into sensing — but the settlement doesn't prevent them from competing; it just prevents them from using their patents to block Nanoco. The real question is why they would bother, given Nanoco's head start and JDAs?

Nanonano has now declared that litigation is a sign of failure and salvage, ignoring that the company generated $155m from it and cleared its path in sensing. He's still asking why companies infringed rather than partnered — the answer is simple: because they thought they could get away with it. They were wrong.

(This forum has become overrun by performative posters who don’t own shares.)

Nanonano is still stuck on the same question: why didn't companies buy from Nanoco? He ignores that they did use the technology — just without paying, until they were sued. That's not a sign of failure; it's the reason the litigation happened.

FlyingHigher is now speculating that the technology doesn't work well — which is directly contradicted by the JDAs and the settlements.

I don't understand why anyone thinks Shoei is suddenly interested in sensors. The settlement specifically carved out sensing for Nanoco — Shoei covenanted not to sue Nanoco or its customers for using Shoei's sensing patents. That doesn't mean Shoei can't compete, but it does mean they can't use their patents to block Nanoco and isn’t the behaviour of a company ready to development a new market.

And Nanoco is the one with the long‑term JDAs in sensing, not Shoei.