22 April Far East Capital weekly commentary, page-8

1. Eden is actually producing the end product, not middle man.

2. FGR is to sub-license an IP to others.

3. TLG is not actually so different from this perspective as they clearly presented this in their business strategy. Developing its own IP, and grant licence to producers. But, they will receive the royalty fees from producers as part of its revenues.

4. Production unit. As FGR indicates the unit can be leased / sold and assembled in the factory for on time production by a manufacturer. Then my question is, who will be responsible for the quality control of graphene production, FGR or the manufacturer?

5. All the works TLG has done are not deviating from their business strategy, and archiving the results they expected and we expected. They have proved the quality of graphene in the end product prototype by its own graphene from its own mine. That's why they deserve a MC of $134M.

On the other hand,
1. so far there is no clear strategy presented by FGR.

2. The way it pursues IPs seems random. And the IPs it is pursuing have not yet been tested by its own graphene production, mainly because you don't have your own ore to work with atm.

3. As WG said, whatever TLG can do , FGR can do better. Howe better? Not until you test and announce, no one would know.

4. Also has SL vein has uniform quality? From other posters, clearly, it may not. Because some of you do argue that the other players in SL do not access the same quality of vein graphite as FGR does. Since you don't have your own mine to test, there is nothing to know at the moment.