I'm glad some are reassured. Personally, I didn't get answers to...

I'm glad some are reassured.  Personally, I didn't get answers to some of the topics I consider key.

Let me explain:

We are told that the main area of competition is close to NAND.  We are told we are pretty unique at the DRAM end of the game.  We have previously been told that all potential buyers have existing relationships with imec.  This is important, because with all our targets circulating within this one hothouse, there is no need to spend  money on sales and marketing, etc

Then we can reasonably expect that all the likely buyers/competitors know at what geometry work is being done.   

But when we ask for clarification as to just what is imec's minimum geometry...well it seems to me that WE are the ones disadvantaged.  If we knew that one piece of information, I do believe that would make a difference to the SP.

Any way I look at that, I see shareholders getting the bum steer...for no good reason.

Below I built a few additional comments in red) on end's comprehensive summary.  (thanks)

• 4DS not releasing any metrics purely to keep competitors in the dark
  - JD's personal circumstances resulting in his resignation highlighted again and apparently were tragic. JD apparently has no intention of selling (more shares)
  - Difference in endurance between DRAM and 4DS: 4DS endurance doesn't need to be as high as memory doesn't need refreshing Obvious, but important point. Given we need to refresh so little compared to DRAM (every 60ms) our endurance can rea;listically be dorm orders of magnitude less, but still adequate for purpose
  - Why DM non-responsive to a lot of questions: 'questions that can't be answered' (then digresses basically saying shareholders don't appreciate what 4DS is doing)...as Numantu says, Business as Usual...unfortunately.
  - WvdH had extensive discussions with IMEC to make sure no more surprises
  - Minimum geometries Q's not answered (see first item) I asked why, seeing likely buyers all work with imec and know their minimum geometries, then why not let shareholders know? Might even help the SP.???
  - Potential degradation in endurance: likely result of the way they could not control current spikes i.r.t. the way they tested the device Does sound like a non-ieesue.
  - JD cash instead of shares: not possible to issue cleansing notice (>5 days suspension) so JD agreed to accept cash instead of shares Yes, it was the limitations brought about by the suspension that limited haow JD could take his entitlement. Not an issue.
  - Roadmap and Gb memory: no plans to develop Gb memory (doesn't have the capability or can't find company to do this)
  - 2013 metrics, still valid? No comparison between that research and what 4DS are doing today, comparison is meaningless
  - 'Size of exit' -> no comment
  - WvdH talks to industry experts on a regular basis to see if what 4DS does is relevant/of interest
  - Next generation 'platforms' (devices?) would benefit from capabilities of 4DS memory
  - Would 4DS license the tech or seek acquisition? 'Both are options'
  - why comment 'no established SCM market? ' Failed attempt to clarify the memory space they are targeting
  - new mask is to address processing issue. Nothing to do with memory cells themselves
  - Standford used to further develop product (not necessarily required to sell)
  - WD most likely acquisition partner? WD is one of them, no idea who is the most likely
  - Would UM make 4DS memory obsolete? Would make all memories obsolete. WvdH is of opinion 'we will never have UM'
  - 4DS announcements: '4DS always looking to improve Ann.'s'. Balance between informing shareholders and keeping competitors in the dark
  - New NPL's? Yes, if improvements made in R&D. But focus on PL for now
  - How confident goals completed in 2022? High confidence of completing megabit memory array. But, development work inherently risky. No comment on acquisition in 2022 or the probability of that
  - aware of serious competition? Not really, but motivated to move as fast as possible to stay ahead of competition Most competition at the NAND end. Nothing obvious at the DRAM end.
  - Impediment to sell to Chinese? Subject to Aus laws, more and more countries put restrictions in place to sell to Chinese, but currently no restrictions but they evolve over time
  - Improvement of PCMO potentially degrading endurance: not fundamentally related. Improvement made it more prone to current spikes. Expected to be resolved when testing with access devices the degradation will not materialise
  - 'not developing UM', developing smth close to DRAM (non-volatile)
  - DRAM players are main competitors, but big cost advantage over them M
  - IMEC royalties: has always been part of the agreement. Only change is the cap (has increased over last several years)
  - Sale before megabit array? Possible but not likely
  - Etching: short loop to optimise etching (risk associated but high confidence in positive result)
  - Latest NPL continues to be tested
  - What is a short loop: taking a small group of the normal steps to make a device (1000-1500) to study a part of the manufacturing process
  - Intention to list on Us stock market? MC too low atm. North of 400/500M$ -> might consider. At this point 'no'.
  Point for clarification (still): If there is virtually no observable competition near us at the DRAM end, why the necessity for all the secrecy around the imec minimum geometry? This information (alone) would surely generate a substantial rerate. Indeed, with this info public, it is conceivable that dilution from this CR could have been much lower.​