Agreed the clinical risk seems low (with the possible exception...

Agreed the clinical risk seems low (with the possible exception of the IV formulation) given all the anecdotal evidence we have. I suspect this is the reason that a lot of us are here and have stayed. I feel like the main risks we have now are time and execution i.e. are RAC able to actually do justice or Zantrene by themselves or would we be better off getting help or letting someone else do it.

We're coming up to 3 years since Sheba I results (i.e. Zantrene still works), not to mention all the additional pre-clinicals etc. since that have added fuel to the fire and RAC have still yet to dose Zantrene into a patient themselves (I'm not including Sheba 2 of course). As has been well-discussed elsewhere, progress on the EMD AML trial has been glacial, but we're also now well beyond the 4-8 week timeline for governance approval of the cardioprotection trial.

Perhaps this risk that RAC are yet to prove themselves in successfully executing a trial is one of the things holding the market back currently. I look across the pond at IMU and they seem to have no problems getting trials initiated and recruiting patients. Having said that, it doesn't appear to have helped their share price much - though they are still sitting at ~3x our MC (down from 8x or so however in November 2021). Still, RAC would look much healthier at a similar valuation.

When people talk of rejecting a low-ball offer in the hopes of proving up a much larger valuation, one thing that may not be apparent is that if doing so takes 10 years and you're diluted to hell in the mean time to fund it all, the price per share you receive for a much larger takeover may not actually be much different to a smaller offer in the near future.