Thanks for your detailed response, @ProCapitalism. You’ve raised some good points, but I still have concerns that I think are worth exploring further.
First, the fact that NMT’s and/or Primobius process is part of an R&D collaboration with its only customer, makes me feel it’s still far from confirmed. R&D collaborations often involve shared IP, which raises a critical question: how can NMT monetize licensing fees when the process itself might not be fully proven? These collaborations can open the door to shared or divulged IP, and if the hydro process isn’t yet running consistently, it’s hard to see how licensing fees could be a sustainable revenue model in the long term.
Second, as I understood NMT/Primobius mentioned that it (will?) earn licensing fees for its processes? Licensing typically requires a proven facility running the process reliably to demonstrate its value. From what I’ve red in announcemebrs, NMT and Primobius seems to be conducting numerous pilot trials, but we haven’t seen tangible results or scaled delivery. Even the collaboration with MB seems heavy on visuals, pictures and marketing videos, but light on news about using recycled materials to manufacture batteries. That raises another question: how far along is this collaboration really?
As for RIL, I agree regulations play a role, but my concern is with the business model itself. It doesn’t seem aligned with the market’s needs, especially when there’s still no clarity on funding, operational plans, or a clear value proposition that differentiates RIL from competitors.
I think we’re all debating these issues and bringing our points of view, but the lack of transparency makes it hard to separate fact from speculation. More disclosures on these critical points, NMT’s revenue model - ideally confirmed by MB, hydro process progress, and funding strategy, would go a long way in helping investors make informed decisions. These are important questions to keep in mind as we watch for updates.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
