Padlock, as I discussed with MMM on another thread, that...

Padlock, as I discussed with MMM on another thread, that "partnering with a Big 5" has possibly become a deceptive red herring. It is time that management declares exactly what the situation is under the disclosre rules. That "trelationship" if it still exists is a built in catalys for prospective investors, as it certainly was when it was initiallty announced. As you say, IF they are using Unith's platform, and have now been doing it for nearly 2 years, "how many more do they need in the future"?
Can you see that non disclosure could be creating interest in something that is no longer taking place. It's potentially deceptive.
I mentioned im my reply that Unith is possibly just using the relationship as a training ground as the other company might now be developing their owm individual system i.e. Amazon's Rufus if that's the one.
But, if that company who is "partnering" with Unith does buy more platforms, Unith would be free from the confidentiality condition.
Surely, any new purchases from that "partner" would be "material" and probably require a separate TH before it is released.
See what's happening, all of this could be a waste of time if no Big 5 is involved.
Come on Idan, a bit of transparency is badly needed by existing AND prospective ones who might be attracted to buying specifically because of that Big 5 that is still in Unith's info.

It's time for all to be revealed, if not the identity, for agreed confidentiality conditions, at least at what stage is that relarionship?