Ann: Infineon Design Agreement and Company Update, page-587

Some observations for those interested.

for the 11 trading days since the infineon update
> SP is 50 % of the pre announcment value
> to close on day 11 (yesterday), 98m shares have been traded.
> short position went from 0.03% on december 18 to ZERO on 3/1 (most recent data is 7 days ago)

compare to the first 11 treading days since PL3 failure announcement:
> SP was 70% lower
> 458 million shares had been traded
> short positions went from 0.02% up to 0.09% (even with the SP down, people getting against - albeit small volume).

so while there are some similarities, to me this drop on significantly less volume doesn't spell doom and gloom.

Cant disagree that knowing what this tech could do, it should be worth more. BUT it is still unproven in a commercial sense. The current SP to me suggests a few things
> market still not willing to take a punt with big $ on an unknown. This is not like speculating on a gold mine - there really isn't even a confined application to size the market opportunities for 4DS tech.
> impatient sellers are driving the action, people wanted the big results sooner.

PN, I wouldn't call myself an apologist - but looking at that data the view I've landed at is:
> PL3 failure was objectively way worse than this, from a tech perspective. It was dead.
> PL3 failure was way worse than this, from a SP (and volume) perspective. It got absolutely flogged. many more people jumped ship at greater losses.
> PL3 failure was way worse than this in terms of timeline impact. It was +16 months (PL6 is what +2 months? - arguably it is still within the same Q as forecast).

The man at the helm during the PL3 aftermath manged to steer into the skid and get the show back on the road. He even successfully capital raised when after PL3 it seemed like it was all going to die with all the other startup attempts in silicon valley.

We again need that CR outcome as a priority. There are right now two advantages over the PL3 CR - the tech is not on its deathbed and the timeline to SP growth is much shorter.

Saying they pulled the CR pin because it didn't give shareholders value to me says they had issue with either: dilution (probably because of the options), the discount, or both. No one here seems to disagree with that decision.

We also don't know what went on behind the doors in making decisions for the CR, maybe other directors wanted to urgently lock in the Infineon agreement and get funds to get it signed.

so it's hard for me to jump on the armchair bandwagon, come to conclusions and call for spills. I'm more forward looking.