Ann: Response to ASX Query, page-223

I have been watching this forum on Getswift for some time and it would appear that most of the unfortunate people to be caught up in the hype, are not fully privy to the industry and Getswifts background. Some of the comments on here from buyers is rather misguided. Below I have provided some objective (as possible) information to help all those trying to sort through the hype and misinformation.

1) GS tech is not innovative, in fact of all the competitors in the space, theirs is the most rudimentary. Food delivery requires the most simplest form of routing and dispatching.

2) The profile of a customer that generally uses fleet management tools are business with their own vehicles which is rarely in a B2C offering. Primarily food restaurants fit this profile. Thus forecasting on a CBA deal with the amount of deliveries they have claimed is very unlikely and would be one of the biggest tech deals in the logistic tech space ever cut. How many b2B companies have a POS system that a GS integration would be valuable for. If you get my drift.

3) The competitors are significantly more advanced and have recurring revenues and SaaS metrics that put them along way ahead of GS. Onfleet.com, Bringg.com, premonition.io, descartes.com. These guys are minimum 5 years ahead of GS.

4) Amazon all but redefined how last-mile delivery works with the development of their own technology. Their supply chain technology is better than primary carriers like Fedex. Thus, It would be very unlikely, like a 0.002% chance they would need GS technology. I would infer that the Amazon deal, like the NA Williams deal is a marketing deal that allows them to sell the potential small merchants who are seeking fleet management technology. This does not guarantee a deal and in no way can a business scientifically forecast delivery volume of this type of deal. In normal course of business, this is not actually a deal...a deal is with the business direct who will attribute revenue.

5) Signing 3 year contracts and Pay-as-you go payment models are two different things. GS has a PAYG model but to beef up their potential revenue forecasts they signed actual contracts at bottom dollar prices, sometimes free. So people on contracts are in a contract, period. GS has now said those same contracts are PAYG as a convenient way of responding to ASX.

My thought are that GS had nothing (still does) and was hoping to sell a narrative, pump the stock and as they raised more capital they intended to backfill the narrative with some real substance. Admirable attempt but shortcuts rarely work.

Happy to answer questions but good luck.