Thank you for the thoughtful and impassioned reply. I absolutely respect your connection to Atlassian and your broader insight into successful Australian-founded tech stories. You've highlighted something critically important — that location is not destiny, and companies like Atlassian have indeed proven that extraordinary success can be built from Australia without dependence on U.S. capital markets in the early stages.
That said, Atlassian and BrainChip are in fundamentally different positions, and this distinction matters greatly in evaluating what may or may not serve BrainChip’s future.
Atlassian reached $300M+ in ARR before listing publicly. They had the luxury to focus privately on product-market fit, revenue scaling, and operational maturity without the scrutiny and volatility that comes with retail-driven public markets. Their IPO was a scaling event, not a survival strategy.
BrainChip is already public — and has been so for years. As they say, “the genie is out of the bottle.” The market evaluates BrainChip not based on long-term vision alone but on immediate traction, liquidity, and institutional credibility. And this is precisely where structural issues in the ASX—and particularly U.S. OTC ADR markets—are causing friction.
Brainchip trades on OTCQX, where liquidity is fragmented, spreads are wide, and visibility is low—especially compared to similar next-gen AI companies trading on the NASDAQ. Despite a United States presence and IP that's genuinely advanced, the company gets none of the institutional flow, ETF exposure, or AI-sector analyst coverage available to U.S.-listed peers.
Meanwhile, “Companies with worse financials and prospects trade for billions of dollars.” This is not due to magic—it’s due to market mechanics. NASDAQ-listed firms benefit from being in the index-driven capital stack, where even speculative AI companies attract capital due to liquidity, hype cycles, and fund mandates. This isn’t a moral argument—it’s structural. I don’t believe redomiciling or listing in the U.S. is a silver bullet. Nor do I think revenue depends solely on it. But as a public, retail-heavy, illiquid stock, BrainChip's ability to close larger strategic deals—and attract long-term institutional support—is indirectly affected by how it is traded and perceived.
Investors are not just asking: “Is the tech good?” They’re asking: “Is this a capital-markets-worthy company with the reach, visibility, and backing to compete with the best?” Right now, the ASX does little to support that narrative abroad. And the U.S. OTC listing isn’t enough.
The Case Isn’t About Parochialism—It’s About Trajectory. To clarify: I don’t suggest that Australian shareholders oppose the move out of small-minded nationalism. I think much of the hesitation is rooted in a genuine and valid fear of dilution, loss of influence, or repeating the mistakes of other tech delistings. That skepticism deserves respect.
But let’s also recognize the larger truth: BrainChip is in a market that’s now exploding. And the valuation asymmetry between BrainChip and U.S.-listed neuromorphic, edge AI, and SNN-adjacent companies is glaring. If redomiciling helps bridge that gap—even partly—it becomes a strategic capital markets move, not a betrayal of the company’s roots.
So yes—revenue will take care of the share price. But let’s also not ignore that capital structure, visibility, and liquidity are what make revenue-generating partnerships possible—especially in enterprise, defense, and semiconductors.
I’m not asking the Board to rush. I’m asking that we not pretend structure doesn’t shape outcome in public markets. And that we not let nostalgia block scale.
Let’s see what the Chair and Board propose—but let’s also be open to the reality that market mechanics matter more now than ever.
(20min delay)