At the moment it's about US$50,000 per doctor per year. I...

At the moment it's about US$50,000 per doctor per year. I suspect this should increase significantly as most doctors will likely increase their usage of the procedure now that it is much easier and efficient to use. It's recurring revenue (due to single use nature of the device) which will necessarily mean it will command a higher valuation multiple. Even more, the legacy device has proved that customer retention is very high so once the company has penetrated the market they should be able to significantly ease up on the marketing spend (boosting bottom line performance).

Total glaucoma treatment market is worth about $7bn and MIGS is more and more becoming the treatment modality of choice for many doctors due to significant issues with the existing treatment modality (eye drops). I think there is a lot of growth runway still left for the whole sector.

Peer valuations based on revenue are quite high, around 5-10x revenue. No one is profitable yet but I suspect that when marketing spend is dialled back, these companies will be very profitable (most have gross margins above 80%).

Also there were two acquisitions last year of MIGS devices. One was a relatively new device with much less data than iTrack Advance which was acquired for around $1 billion AUD + unspecified contingent payments and another was for a device still undergoing clinical trials. The latter, despite not even being revenue generating yet, was acquired for a total sum of almost $1 billion (including contingent payments).

Hard to tell still as it is very early days for iTrack Advance but I certainly don't think it very unrealistic to assume a valuation that high, based both on listed peer companies as well as recent M&A examples. That's not even factoring in the potential of 2RT...