each customer has multiple end users so your COA argument is...

each customer has multiple end users so your COA argument is flawed as the deals are on a price per end user basis which is not disclosed

you get hung up on ASR but fail to acknowledge that management use the term committed which is not contracted . on a peer comparison basis churn figures are also mis leading as trial customers are not included in churn stats which is not applied universally across peer group

the 100m ARR or ASR figure put out by management when backsolved for reported actual revenue in the year that the 100m forecast is achieved still puts the stock on a big multiple

on valuation grounds once the business turns profitable using an earnings multiple not a sales multiple the business is again expensive

I believe the company is not a products company it is a solutions business which is building solutions for enterprises . Whilst it may productise this in tine in the early years it will be a software integration company which will require a big support function to manage multiple code bases. This is important as it will show that operating leverage is not apparent.

Using an eco system of partners as channels and solutions partners requires tacit cooperation and creates issues like revenue share and who owns customers. Again many complex operational issues are glossed over by investors

I think the stock is being fundamentally mis priced and mis understood and the valuation ascribed is well advanced for the progress actually being achieved