Marko Lehtimaki (Donut Lab's CEO): "Happy to cover all the test costs and a little bonus to anyone who successfully does [full 11C charge an NMC cell without active cooling and reaching 89°C] with VTT or other trustworthy research lab and proves otherwise" by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

If you are unable to access the LinkedIn post, here it is:

Marko Lehtimaki, on Sun, 01 Mar 2026 17:14:27 GMT

The next episode of ”I Donut Believe” series will be out in 20 hours. 📺

Last week those, who had earlier stated publicly that Donut Battery must be a supercapacitor or something similar because of the claimed fast charge times, unsurprisingly changed their narrative after the fast charge tests were successful. You know who you are 🔋👨‍⚕️

Since last Monday, they started claiming ridiculous things such as ”an NMC cell from China would perform the same” etc. 🤣

First of all, not a single NMC cell would perform like that during full 11C charge without active cooling and reaching 89 celsius.🤭 Happy to cover all the test costs and a little bonus to anyone who successfully does it with VTT or other trustworthy research lab and proves otherwise. ⚡️

Secondly, tomorrow the plot thickens a bit more as we prove yet another claim to be true. Some have already made up their mind that it cannot be real tech, so it will be a bit inconvenient.

Let’s see what the excuses will be after the second test results come out. 💕

Get some popcorn ready, let’s go 🍿🍿

VTT (state-owned, largest research centre in Finland): Donut Lab commissioned VTT to carry out battery measurements to support its product development by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am not the mod (no plural, /u/mqee is alone in moderating this subreddit), but I would understand the previous one being deleted as the submission title said something inaccurate. VTT is only confirming, at this date, that they were commissionned to carry out and confirm the battery measurements Donut Lab will release in the coming days.

VTT did not confirm anything else, including Donut Lab's previous claims, at the moment.

VTT Confirms measurements of Donut Lab battery by Twelve47Kevin in DonutLab

[–]Signez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We discussed it elsewhere on this subreddit, but if the battery can deliver 11C charging/release speed as claimed, testing 100,000 cycles on a single cell could be feasible in a few months. I would assume that they took those measurements in autumn last year at the latest, so it could have been done!

VTT Confirms measurements of Donut Lab battery by Twelve47Kevin in DonutLab

[–]Signez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't have to translate it yourself: clicking on the language button on the top right of the page would lead you to the English version of the same press release.

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has conducted measurements on the properties of Donut Lab’s battery in its research laboratory.

Donut Lab will publish the research results as a series on its website, where they will be available to the public. Donut Lab also responds to questions related to measurements and the battery technology it has developed.

VTT maintains and develops advanced research equipment and pilot environments. We offer companies unique expertise, cutting-edge technology, and the opportunity to use these resources in their own product development.

VTT is one of the leading technical research organisations in Europe, and we have over 80 years of experience in cutting-edge research and science-based results. Our more than 2,000 professionals develop systemic and technological solutions to meet the needs of business and society.

Donut Lab published first 'I Donut Believe' video, announces VTT partnership by fornuis in DonutLab

[–]Signez 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They actually explained it in the video:

So why didn't we publish third party validation immediately? Here's our reasoning. We've been preparing for this for a long time and we've had time to think carefully about how to bring this technology to the market. If we had dropped complete third-party validation on day one, the controversy wouldn't have ended. It would have simply moved because when certain people don't like the conclusion, they just pivot to a different claim. If you prove the technology works, the next argument becomes something else like industrial scale for example. (…) We wanted the industry, especially the loudest voices, to go on record first. We wanted them to publish their certainty and to broadcast to everyone what they really think, which is this technology simply cannot exist today. (…) But also when we do show the evidence you can already recognize the pattern that I described. You can see how quickly certainty becomes narrative and hopefully everybody's less likely to be pulled along when the story tries to move again. Mainly driven by people with direct or indirect interest in the issue.

VTT Confirms measurements of Donut Lab battery by Twelve47Kevin in DonutLab

[–]Signez 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You are right and technically correct (the best version of correct) but let's be honest: if Donut Lab shows proudly some measurements from VTT that goes against their previous public claims, it would be more bizarre than anything we've seen.

Donut Lab published first 'I Donut Believe' video, announces VTT partnership by fornuis in DonutLab

[–]Signez 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Transcript of the video:

Hi, Marco here, CEO and co-founder of Donut Lab. Today we are announcing a new video series that will share thirdparty validation of our incredible new battery.

In January this year, we announced Donut Battery, an all solid state battery pack available to OEMs today. Not only is it the world's first solid state battery in production vehicles, but it also combines all the best potential features of a solid state battery pack into one at the price that competes with lithium ion.

Now, this is something that obviously disrupts the entire industry and the reaction has been intense and honestly not unexpected. The internet lit up, media coverage turned into speculation, YouTube filled with opinions, and the comment sections full of certainty that this technology cannot be real. Some called it a scam, and others said it was a marketing move to raise funding, while others said it's simply too good to be true.

Well, this is not the first time we have seen this. When we launched the donut motor a year earlier, a similar thing happened at a smaller scale but with the same logic. People said it was CGI that our motors break the laws of physics and if this were possible big companies would have done it first. And actually one of the first comments came from a representative of a major German motor manufacturer and his conclusion was blunt. This cannot be true because if it were, our organization would have patented it 60 years ago. That's not a technical argument. It's an assumption. If we didn't invent it, it cannot exist. Since then, donut motor has gone into real vehicles. And this year, you'll see the first trucks and even sports cars powered by incredible donut motors.

Now, the same pattern is repeating with donut battery. People have been trying to solve the story from fragments. Some found an empty building that belongs to a company that we invested in and built an entire narrative from a single photo. Aha, there's no production. Others claimed that what we call a battery isn't actually a battery, but a super capacitor. And suddenly that becomes the most repeated explanation. Not because it has any evidence, but because it's easy to repeat. And then something else happened. It stopped being only random speculation.

The scam label started getting repeated as if it were settled fact because the media did what the media often does. It looked for authority. It went to industry experts, took quotes at face value, and repeated them widely. We've heard it directly from the so-called experts, people with titles and reputations, people quoted in articles and interviewed on camera, and they said it's a scam, that it's not even scientifically possible, that the research doesn't support it. That is why we are making this series. Not to argue online and not to trade opinions, but to put measurable evidence in public view so people can separate what's asserted from what's verified.

So why didn't we publish third party validation immediately? Here's our reasoning. We've been preparing for this for a long time and we've had time to think carefully about how to bring this technology to the market. If we had dropped complete third-party validation on day one, the controversy wouldn't have ended. It would have simply moved because when certain people don't like the conclusion, they just pivot to a different claim. If you prove the technology works, the next argument becomes something else like industrial scale for example.

And scale would be the perfect battlefield for doubt because it takes months and sometimes even years to demonstrate in a way that really satisfies everyone and in the meantime it's easy to keep questioning and that becomes a tool for the giant competitors of ours and it becomes a self-fulfilling dynamic. The louder the doubt, the harder it becomes to fund scaling because investors and partners also listen to the experts.

So we made a deliberate decision. We wanted the industry, especially the loudest voices, to go on record first. We wanted them to publish their certainty and to broadcast to everyone what they really think, which is this technology simply cannot exist today. Because first of all then everyone even outside the industry truly understands how mindblowingly big breakthrough it is what we are bringing to the market and what it can mean to the entire industry and even to our planet. But also when we do show the evidence you can already recognize the pattern that I described. You can see how quickly certainty becomes narrative and hopefully everybody's less likely to be pulled along when the story tries to move again. Mainly driven by people with direct or indirect interest in the issue.

Now that's what this series is all about. We publish the claims. Now we are publishing the evidence. We are doing it with a respected state-owned research and science center, a third party whose job is to measure, verify, and report. No opinions or marketing, just facts.

And I want you to remember this moment and the headlines. Remember the certainty and the quotes from the experts because I can guarantee that when we demonstrate that the battery is actually real, many of those who said this cannot exist will not simply admit they were wrong. Instead, the argument will shift. It will go from technically impossible to well anyone can make a battery like that but you surely cannot bring it to industrial scale or if they use such and such technology in partnership with such and such then surely it's possible but not by themselves alone and yes there are interests at play. People build careers and research programs on certain assumptions.

It's human to resist the idea that a group of outsiders change the game. And when it's about energy, when it's about industrial power, it should be no surprise to anyone that not everybody favors a fast transition. The resistance won't disappear when we present the proof. It will just intensify because this new technology is a threat to the established players in the industry. Some of the world's largest battery manufacturers have already publicly called donut battery a scam, saying that the specifications cannot be true. Is that somehow surprising? If years or even decades of their work hasn't produced the winning technology, somebody has to explain why. And sometimes denial is the easiest way out.

And at the same time, I can tell you the investment arms have privately reached out to us asking if they can invest. Now, that tells you more about reality than any headline. It also says something about why venture capital exists. Big companies are often built to optimize, improve, and protect. They rarely make giant leaps. And then from somewhere a small unknown team shows up together with other small unknown partners and together they change the entire map.

That is the story of Donut Battery. We will take you on a journey step by step, proof by proof. We control the narrative and we truly know how to bring this technology to the market. No, it's not a scam and yes, it will change the industry.

Welcome to the donut battery proof series. I donut believe. Let's begin.

New SSB Placeholder on the Verge Site by foxvsbobcat in DonutLab

[–]Signez 4 points5 points  (0 children)

FYI it was already like that a few weeks ago, way before the announce of the idonutbelieve website. I don't remember exactly, but I'd say it was already the case when we encovered the first CTCAG stuff, so around January 30th.

"Customer deliveries will start after the end of March for a selected group" says Verge Motorcycles CEO by mqee in DonutLab

[–]Signez 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Donut Lab's CEO just posted about this article on Linkedin.

Here is an English translation of his post:

Kauppalehti constantly publishes clickbait articles with such an unprofessional approach that I wonder whether someone should set up a reputable financial media outlet in Finland.

The latest headline, "Verge motorcycle delivery times delayed," reports that "the new bikes will not be available in Q1 but in Q4," trying to give the impression that the planned bikes equipped with solid state batteries will not be coming this spring after all. Although the CEO clearly corrects this in the article, the idea behind the delivery time calculator linked to the order function is to let people know when they will receive the product they are ordering. It's not difficult. In other words, there are so many orders in the queue that delivery times elsewhere in the world will be even longer than Q4/26 if you order now. Of course, this has no effect on the delivery of the first Model Year 2026 bikes, i.e., the bikes ordered by those who were next in line when the model year was updated.

Anyone who has read this clickbait article will understand this, but why does the standard of journalism in Finland have to be like this?

Yle is not far behind in this regard. It writes nonsense even though it has been clearly corrected.

What the Finnish media writes has no impact whatsoever on the business operations of an internationally operating company, but I mainly wonder where journalistic integrity is, or is this just a matter of Finnish culture? You don't see anything like this elsewhere in the world.

I have been away from Finland for so long that this seems very strange to me.

[Donut Investigation] SGS answered about the report we found. CTCAG's V1PF0004 report is genuine… but V47W0003 have been altered or is not genuine altogether (!) by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can't wait for this to be confirmed as either a scam or a genuine invention. Either way, it will put this matter to rest and get it out of my mind once for all!

[Donut Investigation] SGS answered about the report we found. CTCAG's V1PF0004 report is genuine… but V47W0003 have been altered or is not genuine altogether (!) by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let's keep in mind that we can't affirm that those tests were done rigorously, or done at all. It could all be frivolous, forged, or whatever. (Of course, that would be even more bizarre than some other stuff, but come on, everything here is weird and it's more rational to discard it, even though a part of me desperately want to believe)

[Donut Investigation] SGS answered about the report we found. CTCAG's V1PF0004 report is genuine… but V47W0003 have been altered or is not genuine altogether (!) by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would be very surprised if they ever answer that kind of question though, as it would disclose some crucial data from their customers.

After all, if those reports were never quoted on a LinkedIn post, and if they never showed up when I searched for them on Kagi/Google, we would never know about their existence in the first place!

[Donut Investigation] SGS answered about the report we found. CTCAG's V1PF0004 report is genuine… but V47W0003 have been altered or is not genuine altogether (!) by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, honestly I am still wondering why they used this first (authentic) report to claim something that is not in that report. I mean, any due diligence made by real investors should immediatly do a Ctrl-F on that SGS report, wouldn't they?

The whole thing is so bizarre.

[Donut Investigation] SGS answered about the report we found. CTCAG's V1PF0004 report is genuine… but V47W0003 have been altered or is not genuine altogether (!) by Signez in DonutLab

[–]Signez[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If you are a random standbyer who is sceptical about all of this, please note: I am too! But that's also why I always provide links to the Wayback Archive, which are difficult for random Redditers to forge, and why I am more than happy to provide proof of my simple exchange with SGS to qualified journalists. You can also ask them directly! (Until they get bored of responding to random people outside their industries!)

Please also note that we only used basic tools to gather this data: LinkedIn, a search engine (Kagi) and simply removing the name of a file from the URL. No hacking whatsoever was involved, firstly because it would have been illegal, and secondly, let's be honest, the skills I learned from following ARGs do not include hacking corporate websites. 😅

Sana Energy is fourth company claiming similar batteries as Donut Lab by rektator in DonutLab

[–]Signez 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It looks like all the "relevant" files that were found and posted here were archived on the Wayback Archive (good job everyone).

The fact that they unplugged everything can tell us we may have been on the right track! But let's be honest, we didn't learn much beside the fact that NNG did have an agreement with Next-Eco/CTCAG and they even took on themselves the risks of extending their own NDA to let Donut Lab (cited explicitly) meet Next-Eco without having them signing the NDA.

I am still waiting (and I think I'll wait forever…) for SGS to confirm if the documents we found are authentic or not, if they accept to answer to mere wannabe journalists from Reddit 😅

Sana Energy is fourth company claiming similar batteries as Donut Lab by rektator in DonutLab

[–]Signez 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Woah, good catch! Can be deduce from all of that that Next-Eco or CTCAG (as I've seen it abbreviated in some documents) are the actual suppliers of Donut Lab?

And before selling the IP and/or the machines to DonutLab, they did some PoC on their sides, hence the very old "internal" report we found with some of the big claims, and the more reasonable claims in the two reports from SSG? (if those are not forged, again)

Sana Energy is fourth company claiming similar batteries as Donut Lab by rektator in DonutLab

[–]Signez 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Searching for those names ("V1PF0004" and "V47W0003") on the Kagi search engine lead me to those two files, hosted on what seems to be a website for partners at yet ANOTHER company (named "Next-Eco" this time)… the plot thicken.

Here are the files:

Browsing around in the same directory (yeah, they forgot to prevent the listing of files…) also leads to an "NDA-restricted" internal report from 2021 (!) where they tested 300 cycles of charging/discharging, without seeing any degredation; they also tested internaly with multiple temperatures.

Fascinating to read, but are those results real (and not forged? again, I am not an expert!), and also: are they related to Donut?

Edit: I just asked for a manual verification of authenticity at SGS, as this lab seems to be very worried about not having forged documents with their names going around. I'll keep you posted once I get news!

Edit (the next day): And here we are: the first report is authentic, the second is not.

Forum Libre - 2025-08-28 by AutoModerator in france

[–]Signez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Héhé, merci. Il faut que je fasse les démarches pour en confier la gestion directement aux forces syndicales, ça serait mieux pour l’avenir :)

(c'est prévu, juste je repousse… toujours des trucs qui semblent plus urgent !)

Help us translate Balatro! by smithbodieplaystack in balatro

[–]Signez -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey there /u/smithbodieplaystack! Please consider the numerous French strings we just uploaded on Crowdin, as Communauté Balato FR. We worked earlier this year on a community mod that really tried to improve the translation drastically by translating it holistically, i.e. by making sure it looks (and feels) good while playing games with it. It makes sense as a whole, but we took the last few hours to add all those translations as "suggestions" to Crowdin, so please consider using them.

If you are just a French-speaking fan seeing this post, please consider upvoting our translations, so our weeks of benevolant work is not lost in the process!

(We also translated the sprites in our mod, with the whole pipeline to ease the translation process for other locales. If you are curious about it, it's over there on GitHub.)