The influence of a founder - a Brainchip Story, page-59

Every trading day, for three and a half years, I’ve woken half expecting this company to finally enter a trading halt — not out of crisis, but because management finally had something of substance to say. But every day passes, and nothing. Instead, we’ve been force-fed a diet of grandiose phrases: “explosive revenue,” “one deal from cash flow positive,” “talking to the who's who of Silicon Valley.” It’s become a theatre of the absurd.

The uncomfortable truth is that many shareholders have clung to these empty phrases, because that’s all we’ve been given. Hope is a cheap currency when real information is withheld. And as the American overlords settled in, things went from opaque to outright dismissive.

What is this, exactly? A public company or a private club for insiders protected by a dominant founder shareholding? The actions suggest the latter. The board avoids accountability, retreats from meaningful disclosure, and treats retail shareholders like background noise. We are spoken to as if we are children — to be placated with vague allusions rather than informed like equal stakeholders.

At this stage, serious questions must be asked — not by shareholders, but by the board itself, if they possess even a sliver of self-awareness:

Are we truly capable of closing large-scale commercial deals in this highly competitive environment, or are we simply hoping to be acquired before our deficiencies are fully exposed?

Is the current board composition — a largely US-based echo chamber governing an Australian-listed company — entirely incompatible with our shareholder base?

Why are we still pretending that our IR failures are mere “misunderstandings” rather than systemic cultural incompetence?

Why are complex and technically difficult IP licensing deals continually referenced when it’s obvious we lack personnel capable of prosecuting such transactions?

And why do we still believe we can sustain investor confidence with disconnected, easily contradicted statements like those made during the redomicile fiasco — where an ASX release said one thing, and the Chairman’s AGM performance said quite another?

These are not academic questions. They go to the heart of whether this company has any long-term commercial future, or whether it simply limps forward on vague promises and the founder’s protective voting block.

There is no shame in admitting you are not equipped to execute at this level. The shame is in pretending otherwise while good people — your shareholders — pay for your delusion.