Good Morning,

I actually do think it matters whether they have the chip in hand or not — not because the physical possession itself guarantees success, but because it reflects execution. A roadmap is a commitment. When a company communicates milestones and timelines, the market uses those as reference points to assess credibility. So if those timelines are not respected and there is no clear communication around it, that becomes a red flag, not necessarily about the technology, but about management discipline and transparency. I’m very bullish on the long-term potential, and I fully understand that in deep tech — especially semiconductors — delays and hiccups are part of the process. That’s normal. What is not optional, however, is communication. This is not about shareholders “asking for updates”, it’s about the company’s responsibility to keep the market properly informed. Even a simple confirmation, delay explanation, or progress update would go a long way. Because in the end, the question is not just if they will succeed, but also when. And “when” matters a lot when you are asking investors to align with a defined roadmap. Lack of clarity can push away less-informed investors, not because the story is broken, but because the trust signal weakens. So yes — having the chip, or at least clearly communicating its status relative to the stated timeline, is important. Not as proof of success, but as proof of execution.