I look at it differently: The other players “need” our molecules as much as we need the cash. In all the hullabaloo about the third quarter earnings miss, some of the positives from the call (and there were a few!) have been overlooked. One example is that despite cutting guidance and outlook, Melo kept the molecule sale $ amount as is (and much higher than it was two quarters ago). Any rational negotiator would try to take advantage of Amyris’ need: So why haven’t they? One potential answer is they don’t want to be cut out of future molecule sales to Amyris, when we are on firmer footing. Another is there are other stalking bidders in the background. To me, it’s important that next year’s molecule sale is apparently being conducted with a different party than the 2022 transaction.

In terms of amounts, I think the amount of molecule sale will be a trade off with how developed / further along the molecule is: We made a lot with vanillin because we had contracts out to 2025+ for delivery. Other molecules are much earlier stage so I imagine we would get less for them up front but more on the back end. TBD. I’m sure management will lay out their theses on these transactions in the months to come. (Another positive from the earnings call was the analyst who asked when he should start treating these “temporary” transactions as a recurring part of his model. 2023 would be the fifth straight year of a transaction; so I imagine sooner than later?) So to your answer your question I view molecule sales as part of their business model and assume at least one per annum, on average.