As we have so many irons in the fire, I think what is good for...

As we have so many irons in the fire, I think what is good for most early stage biotechs may not suit us.
Whilst short term funding must be our top priority, I think we need to be very careful of any structure that complicates our capital profile.
The more complex we are with trial partnerships, royalties, etc. The bigger the headache for BP - they would much prefer a clean asset that they can swallow in one go.
IMO we can simply not do a partnership with one specialist company for ALS, then another company for Huntingtons, and so on... There would also be issues with market pricing and off-label prescriptions.
Some options:
1. Commit to one big gorilla for all trials - very efficient and intimate relationship, but we would essentially be married to the Mafia.
2. Stick with the equity markets and foundations for capital for as long as possible and accept whatever dilution comes our way. As long as blocking stakes can be avoided, we will remain in control of our own destiny. Then when we have multiple indications past Ph2/off-label we can present as one whole de-risked asset. NASDAQ could be also be an option once cashflow arrives.
3. Reverse takeover of a small pharma like Amylx (though Amylx is not just ALS and they are haemorrhaging cash by the minute on their pipeline so their 200m in cash is not up for grabs imo) Finding an entity which has just sold out a technology and is looking for a use for their cash would dilute the upside for NUZ holders, yet is a good way to get a quick 200m in the kitty and still remain in control.
Whatever we do, I think we should endure any short term inefficiencies for the long term gain