100 bagger ?, page-463

Just to clarify a point on this, remember that GSW does not sign contracts in the traditional sense. GSW uses a pay per usage model which can be scaled up/down based on the clients needs. This model is outlined clearly in the prospectus and again in the clarifying announcement after the AFR articles.

While an MSA would not govern an exact payment amount, they generally have scope to define the payment terms (and other generic parameters) for any hypothetical subsequent usage of the GSW platform. Allowing Amazon to engage the platform under a defined payment term/usage/indemnity structure pertinent to this MSA. I would not expect that any subsequent contacts be signed to further this engagement, as obligations would be covered under the terms outlined in the MSA on the usual pay per usage model, and once parameters are outlined no further contract would be signed unless GSW were to deviate from their usual "no lock in" model. As I've outlined previously I believe this is why they have gotten into so much disclosure trouble, these are not "contracts" they have been signing and should never have been announced as such (though this does not preclude the possibility of commercial success provided the product is value adding).

One additional thing I will add to this, indemnity is a curious case within an MSA and may go to explaining the need for the $100m raising which, at present, remains largely unspent.

Thanks, all IMO and DYOR

MJ