2025 BrainChip Discussion, page-4674

The arguing and name-calling on this forum has accelerated since the AGM. On one side, we have those defending the company’s conduct, on the other, those identifying the repeated missteps, inconsistencies, and chronic governance failings that continue to plague this business.

This rising hostility is not mysterious. It is the inevitable product of a leadership vacuum in communication. Shareholders — regardless of the size of their holding — find themselves suspended in a state of perpetual uncertainty. And that uncertainty is not organic. It is engineered, whether intentionally or by neglect, through a deliberate withholding of clear, structured, and meaningful updates from the company itself.

We have a board that claims to acknowledge investor frustrations, that promises reform and better transparency, yet seems either incapable or unwilling to execute even the most basic tenets of public company governance: to keep its owners informed. We are treated to scatterings of information via podcasts, social media, or selectively distributed reports, while official ASX releases remain thin, sporadic, and oddly reticent on matters that would normally warrant full market disclosure.

The result? Shareholders are left to debate, argue, and conjecture among themselves, trying to fill a void that only the company can, and should, fill. The tension here is not because investors are irrational. It is because there is no clear corporate narrative being consistently articulated by the leadership — only vague assurances and the occasional contrived apology when challenged.

The truth is stark: Brainchip’s board seems to have failed to grasp that silence is not neutral. Silence, in this context, is corrosive. It allows mistrust to grow, sentiment to decay, and the share register to fragment. The longer this persists, the harder it becomes to rebuild confidence.

The solution, as ever, is not complicated. Demonstrate respect for shareholders. Issue regular, material updates via the ASX — not as a favour to us, but as an obligation of your role as stewards of a public company. If management cannot understand that, or worse, understands it but refuses to act, then they are unfit for the positions they hold.

The question is no longer whether this company will communicate. It is whether it recognises that its very credibility now depends on doing so.