Member Info for TerrorWit

Dear Mr. Kooba,

It appears to me, upon the most careful observation, that despite your repeated attempts to vex dear Mr. Terrorwit, it is you yourself who have befallen the very condition you wished upon him. You have become, I fear, most deeply vexatious — and to such a degree that even the most forgiving of souls might declare your comportment altogether wanting.

I am, sir, &c.,

A Concerned Observer

Totally delulu

When they can't win on substance, they retreat to name‑calling, semantic quibbles, and manufactured outrage. It's not debate — it's performance. Everyone has seen through it hundreds of times and it’s infantile, especially in the context of the stock market.

Kooba, if your point is valid why do you find it necessary to define what 'medium term' means? Is your preferred definition of 2–5 years stated anywhere, or is that something you made up?

And while I'm here: why do you need to keep calling me Terry? How do you imagine that looks to silent readers? (I read it as an indication of your own insecurity.)

The phrase "we continue to progress as a research‑led production company, with the ambition of becoming cash breakeven in the medium term" is a standard, prudent statement. It's not a retreat. It's not a delay. It's the language of a company that has learned not to over‑promise.

This "medium term" language was already present in July 2025. It hasn’t suddenly appeared recently.

Kooba is claiming a non existent change in wording as a change in substance. But the substance — scale‑up in 2026/27, production orders in 2028 — hasn't changed so he appears to seizing on a shift in tone that isn’t there to manufacture a non-existent crisis.

Nanonano suggested sensor commercialisation has been "extended by another year." The company's public announcements don't support that.

· Nov 2023: First JDA announced. Scale‑up expected in 2026/27, with production level orders targeted for 2028.[1].

---

Footnotes

[1] Joint Development Agreement with Asian Customer, Nanoco Group PLC RNS, 7 November 2023: "scale up to industrial production levels during 2026 and 2027."

[2] Extension of Joint Development Agreement, Nanoco Group PLC RNS, 4 November 2025: "production level orders will be rolled out in 2028."

[3] Interim Results, Nanoco Group PLC RNS, 20 April 2026: first JDA "expected to transition into scale‑up in the coming months."

The cash runway is flexible. Costs can be cut further, and JDA income will increase as scale‑up progresses. Worrying about the cash years out, before those levers are pulled, is premature.

Nanonano's arithmetic is roughly right: the LG and Shoei cases together cost the company a net ~$0.1m. That's a rounding error relative to the cash position.

The real value isn't in the arithmetic — it's in the outcome: the sensing path is cleared, the legal uncertainty is gone, and the company has a long cash runway.

Litigation is expensive and uncertain. The company settled when it made sense — with Samsung, with LG, with Shoei. That is the prudent way to run a Business.

Kooba’s posts are a tangle of recycled grievances, meandering sentences, and half‑formed accusations. He's not trying to communicate — he's trying to exhaust. The lack of clarity is convenient since concise English would expose how little he's actually saying.

—————

Thank Amerloque, nice to be appreciated but I’m neutral, neither positive or negative and waiting with an open mind to see if the company continues to execute.

Feeks, my holding is none of your business. The facts don't change whether I hold 1 share or 1 million. The company has a long cash runway and is executing its strategy.

If you have to willfully ignore the past to honestly post that as if it's the whole story.

It's been a long wait for the market to mature. But if you've lost confidence, you know what to do. Endless public rants and insulting other small investors won't help bring your money back faster.

You've nailed it. A company genuinely worried about bankruptcy doesn't threaten to sue Apple — that's not a move made from weakness. It suggests they either had litigation finance lined up (or the confidence to secure it), or that they'd already planned ahead together with Apple.

And Shoei didn't walk away unscathed. They paid their own legal fees — which were likely even more substantial, since they started the action.

Well, obviously, if there had been a significant infringement, Nanoco would have secured litigation finance — as they did against Samsung — and commenced the action themselves.

The RNS clearly sets out the legal cost of £3.2m in the Full Year Outlook section. Obviously, the scale of Shoei's infringement was too small to make it economical to pursue further — perhaps because it would have required expensive litigation finance. It looks like Nanoco might gain some display customers at last anyway.

It is pathetic. Quoting out of context and cherry‑picking is not analysis — it's desperation. You can't engage with my overall position, so you grab fragments and pretend they stand alone.

Whatever their limitations, Edison and Cavendish are professional analysts who follow disclosure rules and put their names to their work. Forum performers here hide behind pseudonyms and offer nothing but speculation and insults.

Most silent readers will see the difference.

"Continuing on from the usual arguing between opinions..."

--------------

It's endless performative hypotheticals vs reasoned analysis based on what the company and both its professional brokers have announced to the market.

Pure paranoia

It looks to me that things won't be a disaster, as some seem to fear — nor will they be a spectacular success any time soon. It's more realistic to accept that outcomes will likely land somewhere between the extremes.

Nanoco will probably continue much as it is, growing gradually as the market matures over the next few years. Anyone who is certain of complete failure — or, on the other hand, a sudden, spectacular success — is likely extrapolating how they feel in the moment into the future without much reflection.

It's hard to see anything the company is currently doing incorrectly.