Calling for @DS to respond, page-43

Yes this is precisely my point. I was one of the cheer squad until I started asking some difficult questions and wised up.

We cannot move forward effectively and with wisdom, if we fail to learn the lessons from the past.

That's why it's crucial to understand it was a set of strategic errors, (including failure to understand the economics against adoption of our tech into existing tests, including the inability to get agreements up that would result in meaningful cash flow), that resulted in the mess of Diasource.

They say it's the past and over with. But the past informs the future!


For some reason people still don't engage in any detail about what led up to the Bergen issue and the Diasource debacle. They gloss over the regulatory barriers to adoption (current relevance? these cost barriers still exist. they do!).

So my worry is that a perfectly brilliant opportunity for us to partner in the future on the battery space, and finally, finally have revenue streams for long suffering shareholders...will be squandered because we grab a short term, capital injection of funds.

And gallop off again into the diagnostics unicorn and rainbow space. Instead of doing proper strategic analysis. Instead of realising that revenue stream form batteries would be far smarter than a one off capital sale.

TBH I despair at the commercial savvy of small Australian companies. We just don't have the smarts. We have vanity projects. We have cheerleaders for projects but we don't have the commercial nous.

I really hope I'm wrong. Because you cannot have an accurate valuation of the battery IP. It's why a revenue stream is far preferable because it's ongoing. Prospective buyers would be well aware of that.