BRN Discussion Ongoing

[jrp173]

They could edit attendees out?

maybe, but they've never asked for shareholder permission before.. so why start now??

 

[suss]

Looks like Brainchip is now with Meta, I’ve always thought the Meta Quest should have Brainchip Akida built in. It’s a perfect fit. Akida’s neuromorphic, event-based architecture excels at ultra-low power edge processing, which is exactly what devices like the Meta Quest need. By offloading tasks like eyeball tracking, gesture recognition, and facial emotion detection to Akida, the headset could achieve faster response times, lower power consumption, and greater privacy by keeping AI inference on-device. This would enable more natural interactions, better immersive experiences, and extended battery life—without relying on cloud processing or bulky compute resources.

View attachment 84522






above is Meta's interview with Yann Lecun where he mentions his coleagues are very interested in neuromorphic processes / spiking neural networks because of their ability to constantly process inference without draining a battery



View attachment 84523

 

[Fullmoonfever]

New repository set up yesterday on GitHub by NeuroSyd with the title:

Akida-Seizure.

Nothing added as yet but you'd suspect given what they do at the facility it would be our Akida they either been or will be playing with.

NeuroSyd

NeuroSyd has 36 repositories available. Follow their code on GitHub.

github.com

View attachment 83528

View attachment 83529

NeuroSyd Research Laboratory

NeuroSyd Research Laboratory at the Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, is where emerging paradigms in computing, data science, neuro/bio-engineering and nanotechnology collide. NeuroSyd research is highly multidisciplinary and span over a wide range of fields from Device to Data,

sites.google.com

View attachment 83530

Omid Kavehei

The University of Sydney - Cited by 6,831 - nanoelectronics - medical electronics - affective computing - learning machines - integrated circuit design

scholar.google.com

View attachment 83531

Further to my previous NeuroSyd post.

They have just started uploading the readme, codes, models and scripts.

Looks like similar path as Onsor with regards to epilepsy seizure detection.

https://github.com/NeuroSyd/Akida-Seizure

• README

This repository contains code implementations for seizure detection leveraging the BrainChip Akida neuromorphic platform.

The models and scripts included here are designed to process, training TUH and EPILEPSIAE EEG data and identify epileptic seizure patterns in real time, utilizing Akida's event-based neural network capabilities for low-power and high-efficiency training at the edge.

This framework proposes a patient-specific approach rather than generalizable.

model.py (training) quantization.py (QAT) akida_convert (online-training) with EPILEPSIAE dataset.

 

[Pom down under]

maybe, but they've never asked for shareholder permission before.. so why start now??

Probably the same cock in the company that wouldn’t allow access the the top 100 share holders

 

[jrp173]

You do read the "source, estimates, assumptions" disclaimers under the data and graphics yeah?

They even tell you it's from company reports or is Trims estimates or assumptions.

Can you point out what information you found that you believe could only come from BRN?

Fullmoonfever, I think perhaps we are misunderstanding one another..

My posts today were initially centred around whether or not BrainChip commissioned the report - I believe they did.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that BRN provided all of the information contained in the report.. clearly the report is the work of Trim Capital, what I was saying is that Trim's assumptions and views have to be based on information that is publicly available and ALSO on information provided to them by BrainChip. The seek out public information and review the information given to them from BrainChip and then they analyse, make assumptions and write their report. That's my view.

You asked for examples in the report that could only have come from BrainChip.. Here's one:

If that reason did not come from BrainChip, why would BrainChip allow Trim to talk about a Nasdaq listing, when Antonio at the AGM, denied this (by saying they never mentioned the US and the redomicile could be "anywhere". So there are only two options, Trim have just made this potential Nasdaq listing up or BrainChip told them this. If they just made it up, Brain Chip would have spotted this error and would have made sure that Trim rectified this error before it was published.

If you don't agree, no worries that's your prerogative.

 

[Rskiff]

Fullmoonfever, I think perhaps we are misunderstanding one another..

My posts today were initially centred around whether or not BrainChip commissioned the report - I believe they did.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that BRN provided all of the information contained in the report.. clearly the report is the work of Trim Capital, what I was saying is that Trim's assumptions and views have to be based on information that is publicly available and ALSO on information provided to them by BrainChip. The seek out public information and review the information given to them from BrainChip and then they analyse, make assumptions and write their report. That's my view.

You asked for examples in the report that could only have come from BrainChip.. Here's one:

View attachment 84587 If that reason did not come from BrainChip, why would BrainChip allow Trim to talk about a Nasdaq listing, when Antonio at the AGM, denied this (by saying they never mentioned the US and the redomicile could be "anywhere". So there are only two options, Trim have just made this potential Nasdaq listing up or BrainChip told them this. If they just made it up, Brain Chip would have spotted this error and would have made sure that Trim rectified this error before it was published.

If you don't agree, no worries that's your prerogative.

Has anyone asked the company if they commissioned the report. It would shut this down straightaway.

 

[Fullmoonfever]

Fullmoonfever, I think perhaps we are misunderstanding one another..

My posts today were initially centred around whether or not BrainChip commissioned the report - I believe they did.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that BRN provided all of the information contained in the report.. clearly the report is the work of Trim Capital, what I was saying is that Trim's assumptions and views have to be based on information that is publicly available and ALSO on information provided to them by BrainChip. The seek out public information and review the information given to them from BrainChip and then they analyse, make assumptions and write their report. That's my view.

You asked for examples in the report that could only have come from BrainChip.. Here's one:

View attachment 84587 If that reason did not come from BrainChip, why would BrainChip allow Trim to talk about a Nasdaq listing, when Antonio at the AGM, denied this (by saying they never mentioned the US and the redomicile could be "anywhere". So there are only two options, Trim have just made this potential Nasdaq listing up or BrainChip told them this. If they just made it up, Brain Chip would have spotted this error and would have made sure that Trim rectified this error before it was published.

If you don't agree, no worries that's your prerogative.

Ummmm.....report would take some time to compile and write, so started a little while ago, agree?

Report is dated 5th April.

AGM and Antonio's denials were 6th April.

Redomiciling Evaluation Ann via ASX (public info) came out 27th Feb.

Maybe that timeline helps you....maybe not.

 

[SERA2g]

@SERA2g @Wickedwolf @jrp173

The section on Trim vs BRN revenue forecast clearly states Trim has taken impairment testing values as assumptions via data implied in the BRN FY24 report...Publicly Available.

Does anyone actually read reports or just look at pretty charts and graphs or maybe they do read the reports but just make sh!t up


"Our forecasts are lower than what BRN management expects over the next 5 years, which has been implied in their revenue assumptions used in their impairment testing for intangible
assets (See FY24 Financial Report)"

Hi fullmoon

Don't appreciate your accusations and I think the issue here is you haven't read my post correctly.

I understand where Trim has got their information from - their own estimates.

Here's the trim capital report so people don't need to search for it.

My point is where has Brainchip publicly made available their expectations for revenue in 2026, 27, 28 and 29.

It clearly says "Source: Company reports" but as far as I am aware, Brainchip has never provided forecasts other than the mention of $9m booking targets.

Please can you confirm where this information has come from because as far as I'm concerned, there is no PUBLICLY AVAILABLE report which includes those rev and opex forecasts.

Hence my post, "That I'm aware of, other than the $9m in bookings recently mentioned at the AGM, brainchip has never released revenue targets. I wonder where that came from as Trim indicate it is from information released by the company, which can't be correct, unless Brn provided the expectations to them for the report."

 

[Fullmoonfever]

Hi fullmoon

Don't appreciate your accusations and I think the issue here is you haven't read my post correctly.

I understand where Trim has got their information from - their own estimates.

Here's the trim capital report so people don't need to search for it.

My point is where has Brainchip publicly made available their expectations for revenue in 2026, 27, 28 and 29.

It clearly says "Source: Company reports" but as far as I am aware, Brainchip has never provided forecasts other than the mention of $9m booking targets.

Please can you confirm where this information has come from because as far as I'm concerned, there is no PUBLICLY AVAILABLE report which includes those rev and opex forecasts.

Hence my post, "That I'm aware of, other than the $9m in bookings recently mentioned at the AGM, brainchip has never released revenue targets. I wonder where that came from as Trim indicate it is from information released by the company, which can't be correct, unless Brn provided the expectations to them for the report."

View attachment 84600

No accusations, just a generalisation about how all this goes in circles when there is information there.

As per my previous post...Trim used FY24 Fin Report assumptions used for impairment testing. That's where BRNs numbers come from...."implied' by BRN and merely collated to suit the Trim scenario.


"Our forecasts are lower than what BRN management expects over the next 5 years, which has been implied in their revenue assumptions used in their impairment testing for intangible
assets (See FY24 Financial Report)"


People can interpret however they want, I've spelt out where I believe the data comes from as per Trims own notes a d disclaimers.

 

[SERA2g]

No accusations, just a generalisation about how all this goes in circles when there is information there.

As per my previous post...Trim used FY24 Fin Report assumptions used for impairment testing. That's where BRNs numbers come from...."implied' by BRN and merely collated to suit the Trim scenario.


"Our forecasts are lower than what BRN management expects over the next 5 years, which has been implied in their revenue assumptions used in their impairment testing for intangible
assets (See FY24 Financial Report)"


People can interpret however they want, I've spelt out where I believe the data comes from as per Trims own notes a d disclaimers.

Hi Full

Thank you for clarifying. I'm glad I haven't missed real 'forecasts' published by the company because if those numbers were the boards real expectations shareholders would be furious. $15m revenue in 2029 would be an enormous failure in progressing this company forward.

I would lend literally zero credence to the revenue and opex estimates. Using an auditors impairment testing assumptions for brainchip's intangibles to spin out revenue and opex "forecasts" for comparison and calling them "brainchips expectations" is ludicrous.

I am now assuming the board have not read this in detail and have looked at the summary - "bull case Trim think we're worth $1, lets get it out to the market, hopefully it'll rally shareholder enthusiasm for our growth prospects".

Appreciate you spending the time to clear that one up x

 

[Terroni2105]

With regards to the company not releasing the AGM recording because they don’t have everyone’s permission, I agree with whoever posted that it is more than likely because of Antonio’s behaviour / response around the redomociling conversation. There were no shareholders identified in that video, only the backs of heads were seen. The only people needing to give permission is the BrainChip people there. And I also agree with the observation of since when in past years has any permission been sought.

 

[Drewski]

I feel like we are the embarrassing old friends at the party.
BRN has now much cooler friends.
When we walk in on a conversation (AGM) everyone goes quiet; we couldn't possibly understand. It's best if we don't know who they are rubbing shoulders with, polite introductions and pleasantries.

PVDM is loyal but his influence is not what it was and he is tired, he remembers when we were friends, how we took part in the adventure and supported each other. He is conflicted.
His new friend Antonio keeps telling him you don't need these guys anymore, they are holding you back, your dream is bigger than them, it's tough but you will have to ditch them.

Sean is torn, he is honest, competent and hard working - but the GLORY, the GLORY.

The others at the party, understand life is tough and unfair, however sacrifices must be made or it's not my business or they really are just hangers on or I'm just here to play guitar in the band. I'm not responsible, I just want the music to be great.

On the other hand, they might be protecting us for our own good and I might be paranoid.

Otherwise,

 

[Pom down under]

With regards to the company not releasing the AGM recording because they don’t have everyone’s permission, I agree with whoever posted that it is more than likely because of Antonio’s behaviour / response around the redomociling conversation. There were no shareholders identified in that video, only the backs of heads were seen. The only people needing to give permission is the BrainChip people there. And I also agree with the observation of since when in past years has any permission been sought.

Didn’t someone here mentioned they recorded all on there phone. Happy to let them upload it to my Dropbox where I’ll will send a link for everyone to watch

 

[Fullmoonfever]

Didn’t someone here mentioned they recorded all on there phone. Happy to let them upload it to my Dropbox where I’ll will send a link for everyone to watch

According to posts it was @White Horse and @jrp173 who had recorded it on desktop and iPhone respectively.

 

[Pom down under]

According to posts it was @White Horse and @jrp173 who had recorded it on desktop and iPhone respectively.

@White Horse @jrp173 send us a PM if you’d like to upload the AGM to my Dropbox for me to post a direct link or upload it to YouTube as I’m well over this companies poor communications to shareholders and now for the 2nd time trying to withheld information that should be shared. Maybe the company should rethink the decision to withheld the video before it makes them look more stupid than they already are.

 

[MDhere]

@White Horse @jrp173 send us a PM if you’d like to upload the AGM to my Dropbox for me to post a direct link or upload it to YouTube as I’m well over this companies poor communications to shareholders and now for the 2nd time trying to withheld information that should be shared. Maybe the company should rethink the decision to withheld the video before it makes them look more stupid than they already are.

Pom...

 

[Pom down under]

Pom...

I don’t often speak out, but fu.k me a few in the company should resign straightaway as its becoming a joke on how they communicate or fail to communicate.

 

[ChipMan]

I don’t often speak out, but fu.k me a few in the company should resign straightaway as its becoming a joke on how they communicate or fail to communicate.

Relax, some monster deals are coming

 

[Pom down under]

Should or shouldn’t the 6th May Brainchip recorded AGM be posted online for everyone to se... - StrawPoll

What is your opinion? Vote now: Yes, No

strawpoll.com

Vote closed and an overwhelming yes

 

[DK6161]

With regards to the company not releasing the AGM recording because they don’t have everyone’s permission, I agree with whoever posted that it is more than likely because of Antonio’s behaviour / response around the redomociling conversation. There were no shareholders identified in that video, only the backs of heads were seen. The only people needing to give permission is the BrainChip people there. And I also agree with the observation of since when in past years has any permission been sought.

I don't thing AGMs should be recorded in the first place. These are internal meetings between the Board, key personnel and shareholders. Should not be made public.
Happy with the Board's decision in this case.
Not advice