Member Info for TerrorWit

Feeks, I don't feel any shame because I never made any promises and, anyway, the situation isn't terminal or even unusual. It is all no more than normal business.

A few observations, without emotion.

The board would not risk a 75% vote unless they were confident of winning. A failed vote would be a disaster for them. That confidence will have come from private discussions with major holders.

The trading over the last few weeks has been unusual — higher volume, larger blocks, genuine two‑way activity. That suggests positioning ahead of this announcement, not just retail noise.

It is possible that someone has been building a stake in support of the board's strategy. It is also possible that the selling we are seeing now is short‑term holders exiting. Both could be true.

The choice for each holder is simple: sell now if you need liquidity, or hold if you believe the company can execute and want to stay for the long term. There is no right or wrong answer. It depends on your own timeline.

(I’m moving from buy to hold.)

The delisting is a perfectly rational way for the board to restructure the business. What they are effectively saying is that they want to succeed in the long-term and they are offering holders who were only along for the ride an orderly exit. If Nanoco execute on the JDAs, everything will be alright for those who continue to hold.

It really doesn’t make much sense for a company with £10 million of capital to be listed on the main market and we can see how being listed has hampered its ability to negotiate legal settlements with full freedom.

Bunsen Burner, I don’t suppose you know where I’ve left my keys?

I think most readers can determine who’s living in their own head most.

Within hours of returning, Kooba has turned the thread back into the same toxic space it was before his suspension. The pattern is unmistakable.

The distinction remains: Nanoco is positioned for mass consumer electronics (smartphones), not industrial machine vision. The scale of the two markets is incomparable.

And an R and D JDA is not the same as scale up anyway.

Caught with your pants down again.

Kooba, you are trying to suggest, with unnecessary insults, that sub‑kilogram‑scale facilities are a threat to Nanoco's facilities that can produce quantities several orders of magnitude greater in scale and with their JDAs with major tier one suppliers.

Kooba is posting news about a completely different part of the quantum dot sensing ecosystem and implying it's relevant to Nanoco. It is not.

The industrial market (defence, drones, inspection) is real, but it is nothing like the scale of a single, global consumer application. Different scale, different story.

Completely irrelevant.

Tbow, the article describes a different application (medical imaging), which isn't Nanoco's current focus (sensing/display). Interestingly, Nanoco did significant work in this area a few years ago (e.g., the VIVODOTS™ programme with UCL for image‑guided cancer surgery). While they closed that dedicated unit, the fundamental research and expertise remain within the company.

The key point is manufacturing. Nanoco's core patent (US7,588,828) covers:

· A method specifically designed for scale‑up to mass production

· The use of periodic table "groups" (e.g., Group 13 & 15), covering a wide range of materials, not just indium

· Doping with other elements – exactly what the medical imaging dots require (lanthanide doping)

So, while the article isn't directly about Nanoco, the scalable production method – including the ability to dope – is precisely what their patents protect. They have the platform technology and and license their IP if medical imaging with quantum dots ever gets beyond small lab scale synthesis.

I offered a data point, not a conclusion. What others do with it is their responsibility. Sammy88's extrapolation is plausible, but it's still speculation — he's connecting dots that may not be connected. The Apple leak is evidence of Apple's direction, not Nanoco's role in it. The JDA structure is evidence of Nanoco's progress, not Apple's involvement. They may align, or they may not.

Https://biggo.com/news/202603260150_iPhone-18-Pro-Dynamic-Island-Smaller-Under-Display-Face-ID-Delayed

This report correlates with Nanoco‘s reported execution timeline. Evidence but not conclusive.

The only thing that really matters is that the company keep on executing. Everything else is really just noise but it would be interesting to know who has been buying the shares, if it’s one of the institutions who have held before, like Lombard Odier, that would be an encouraging sign.

… because we can all trust a person quoting Shakespeare on an anonymous forum?

“Methinks” - that’s from Hamlet as is …

"To sell, or not to sell – that is the speculation“

(Probably best not to use iambic pentameter on LSE though, there’s probably a rule.)

It's possible the large sell orders are from one of the activist investors who failed to take control – Milkwood or Hamoodi.

If that's the case, clearing that overhang might actually encourage more buying.

There aren’t many other others who had sufficient shares to explain the volume.

Okay, but I think you’re overstating the novelty of the insight. It’s not a tough stretch.

Nanoco's applications in sensing, SWIR, and AI‑adjacent markets have been discussed in their own materials for years.

The information is already public – on Nanoco's website, in their presentations, in the interim results. Anyone can read it for free. A paid research note from a little‑known firm adds nothing except a price tag and an agenda.

The author posting it under a new name, then "innocently" sharing it, is transparent.

A brand‑new poster who posts a link to a research note, and frames it as "really interesting" could easily be the author or someone connected to the note, trying to generate attention.