Enig alt dette, men usikkerheten er der dessverre uansett. Jeg blåser i om jeg kjøper på 5 eller 8 så lenge de gir meg grunn til å tro at de har full kontroll på cashburn, tek. og fremtidige inntekter etter kostnader uten å bli utvannet på lave emisjoner.
1 Like
Huff huff
Til salgs på 5,5 nå
Enda mer til salgs på 6,5
Og helt stille…
Der ble det solgt på 5.5
Man kan begynne å lure på hva i all verden det er som foregår her
1 Like
Reklamevideo er bra, men tror ikke det hjelper så mye. Det er selve produktet og videre R&D reise som betyr noe
1300 på 5,5 man kan kjøpe 
Det er både kjøper og selger på 5.5
Da er det en av de de ikke får tak i
Jeg har kjøpt nok
1 Like
Det som er helt sikkert er at markedet ser på dette som for usikkert/uavklart nå til å gå inn
Selv om det er smal nisje og bare på OTC er det nok av folk som vet om selskapet og som ville gått inn hvis de følte seg tryggere
1 Like
Ja får håpe de klarer å hente penger, hvis ikke så ser det mørkt ut
1 Like
Presset bør være relativt stort på ledelsen nå.
Ja det som er litt kjipt er at jeg tipper investorene bruker dagens kurs for det det er verdt i evt forhandlinger
Om man som selskap ikke klarer skape engasjement, så går det sånn dessverre.
Noen som vil si noe om antall aksjer og GAV dere sitter på? Er det 100.000vis eller 1000vis? Gav over eller under 10? Jeg har feks rett under 10000stk og Gav under 10. Bare litt nyskjerrig.
Har 14 000 aksjer på ca. 7 tror jeg,-
CNANO er en lottokupong som et par andre aksjer jeg sitter med Enten gevinst, eller fradrag på skatten
1 Like
80.000 på ca 10.80
1 Like
There seems to be some confusion among several here regarding the interpretation of “licensed” (“current state of the art”) UV-C LED technology and what it means in the semiconductor industry.
To be very concrete: To be able to launch anything in the semiconductor industry, being IC, chips, LED etc you need to license some existing technology from one or several patent holders.
All technology build on each other, from packaging, processes, chemistry, etching etc, to be able to launch anything, even with a ground breaking technology, in this case nanowires + graphene, you need several parts which are governed by current patents of a “known technology”.
So I think many in here have the impression of that CrayoNano has just rebranded an existing product from a competitor, as in whitelabeling, but that is obviously not the case. White labeling is taking an existing product from a supplier “as-is” and buying a license to present/package it as “your own product”. However, this is not the case with CrayoNano.
As any UV-C LED supplier in the world today you need to make either a royalty-based or fixed price agreement with the owner of the patents, or they will sue (just look up all the lawsuits by Seoul Semiconductor, or even CrayoNanos partner SemiLEDs, use Justia). Most UV-C LED suppliers today need to deals with Nichia and/or Seoul Semiconductor (Seoul Viosys) + more. Then they add their own magic sauce in the mix creating a new product with distinct features, protected by their own patents on top.
A patent has a requirement that it must be specific enough to recreate the invention, and you need to prove the actual creation. However, the patents strike a balance between disclosing just the needed details to create the invention, but not all the trade secrets and know-how to make an 100% identical product. The requirement on detail level to create the same invention with a described process is not including how to achieve the holders own product when it comes to get the same power, duration and characteristics etc.
When licensing a patent you are free to do the manufacturing yourself or use you own partners.
This way you can even improve on the opf the licensed patents and improve the power characteristics etc, and then you own uniqueness on top of that.
With CrayoNano this is the case. Nothing in the market looks like the H-series CrayoLED chip and the product is even crushing the old competitors in the market.
Now they are in a “controlled market-entry” - testing the processes, packaging, supply chains, vendors, QA, building long term partnerships. They have stated this is the platform they use “current state of the art” technology, and they will include the unique nanowires and graphene in the same packaging using the same processes.
Some place along the line they need to define a “cutoff” when they think the market-entry testing and optimizations are good enough, before they put in the groundbreaking nanowires and graphene. At that point all fundamental processes, supply chains and testing are ready, no way back from that point.
5 Likes
Thanks @VincentFreeman
With all this in mind it is just so strange that the stock is so extremely low and seem to be not very attractive even on this level.
I like your Gattaca reference I’m genuinely impressed by your deep understanding of the intricacies of the semiconductor industry and CrayoNano’s innovative approach. Given your insightful analysis, I’m curious about your knowledge of CrayoNano’s background and their specific contributions to this evolving technological landscape. Could you provide further insights into your familiarity with the company and its future endeavors? Are you a stockholder as well?
2 Likes
Du får spørre om det samme og be ChatGpT ta høyde for aksjonær verdiene i samme tid.
2 Likes
Noen som vet når neste kvartalsrapport kommer?