I sat down with my digital assistant, and combined some existing research with the interview from Strawman.

Overall - it fits my data as future theme, it replaces humans (fixes population decline), and is small enough to make those sweet brag-gains.

Bear in mind, AI likes to be agreed with... it weirdly has anxiety about being liked. hahahaha.

//start

Short version: Chris is saying all the right strategic things, and most of it lines up with the numbers we can see. RKT is still a high-risk microcap, but the interview actually strengthens the long-term “this could be a real business, not just a drone fad” thesis.

I’ll break it into:

1. What Chris is really telling you
2. How that compares to the hard numbers
3. Where the BS / risk might sit
4. What that means for future value & what I’d do in your shoes

1. What Chris is really saying (decoded)

From the interview, the key points:

• “We’re not a drone company, we’re a data company.”
• xBot / drone-in-a-box is “just the ticket to the game”; the real moat is SiteTube, integrations, and data workflows.
• They want to be the data/visualisation layer in the mine’s stack, not just a hardware vendor.

Clear product–market fit with Tier-1 miners.

• Started with BHP in South Africa 12 years ago.
• Now has Rio, BHP, Gold Fields, Vault (KOTH) and others using xBots.
• He says: when they drop a unit for a “trial”, it never leaves.

Massive uplift in data demand when you remove friction.

• Typical mine: ~20 flights/month with on-site pilots.
• With xBot: 180–200 flights/month – 10x+ uplift – once it’s as easy as “Uber-style” request.

Recurring revenue focus, not lumpy defence-style deals.

• He explicitly contrasts RKT with other “drone stocks” chasing big one-off contracts.
• Everything (hardware, software, services) is being structured as recurring – “infrastructure as a service” + “data as a service”, plus pay-per-use on flights to get customers in cheaply.

Capital discipline & not over-hyping.

• He’s clearly aware of the “grow yourself broke” risk and says they’re deliberately pacing spend and building only when there’s a customer problem + revenue attached.
• He openly acknowledges all the drone company “bodies on the battlefield” and the need for discipline, recurring models, and enterprise-grade standards.

Vision: “photocopier for every mine site.”

• He genuinely believes an xBot-style system will be standard infrastructure at open-pit mines, the way photocopiers ended up in every office.
• In 5 years he sees RKT as a data & robotics company (drones + ground robots), filling labour gaps as fewer people want to work on remote sites.

Net: he’s pitching a sticky, infra-like mining data platform with strong early validation and a recurring model, not a “cool drone toy”.

2. Does that match the numbers?

Mostly yes – which is comforting.

Revenue & ARR

• FY24 revenue A$7.24m, up 18% YoY;
• ARR A$3.29m, up 16% (so ~45% of revenue is now recurring). ASX Announcements
• Q1–Q3 FY25:
• Q1: A$1.66m
• Q2: A$1.665m Investi
• Q3: A$1.875m (+13% QoQ, +40% growth in xBot/services/software/data mix) Market Index Data API

So the “land & expand with Tier-1” story is actually showing up in the quarterly revenue trend. It’s not just talk.

Customer contracts

• Vault (King of the Hills) 18-month contract:
• TCV A$705k
• Estimated ARR A$470k. ASX Announcements
• AGM address + small-caps coverage point to multi-year deals with Gold Fields, BHP, etc., consistent with what Chris describes. ASX Announcements+1

That matches his “once they try it, they never let it leave” vibe and reinforces the recurring revenue thesis.

Cash & scale

• Q3 FY25 cash A$1.03m (down from 1.74m in June); operating cash burn reduced to A$385k for the quarter. Market Index Data API
• Then they raised A$4m in a capital raise alongside a big deployment deal (Anglo/Kumba, 7 xBots at Sishen). Ausbiz+1

So: they are still burning cash, but the burn is shrinking and they’ve topped up the tank in a way that brings in more xBot deployments, not just survival money.

Valuation

• Market cap ~A$19–22m at ~A$0.017–0.02 per share. Market Index+2StockAnalysis+2
• TTM revenue ~A$7.1m, so P/S ~2.5–3x. StockAnalysis+1

For a microcap with Tier-1 logos, mid-teens growth and rising ARR, that multiple is not outrageous. It’s not dirt-cheap, but it’s not in crazy hype territory either.

3. Where the risk / “delta” between narrative and reality is

This is where I’d be cautious:

1. Still loss-making & funding-dependent.

• Net profit is still negative; they’re not safely cash-flow break-even yet.
• They need that ARR and revenue to keep stepping up, otherwise you’re back to capital raises, dilution, or slowdown.

1. Hardware is commoditising, moat must really be software + workflow.

• Chris is honest: they assemble mostly off-the-shelf components; the box itself is not proprietary magic.
• Done well, that accelerates; done badly, that’s how you “grow yourself broke”.

So the story is good and broadly truthful, but execution still has to thread a tight needle: keep winning mines, ramp ARR, and hit breakeven before the capital markets turn off the tap again.

4. So what about future value? (For you, specifically)

Given:

• Market cap ~A$20m
• Revenue ~A$7m and growing
• ARR ~A$3.3m and rising
• Tier-1 miners onboard, growing usage per site
• You have high risk tolerance, are happy with microcaps, and think in 5+ year horizons

My read of the 5-year risk/reward

Bear case (it stalls)

• Growth slows, one or two big miners don’t expand, cash burn persists.
• More dilution raises at or below current price.
• RKT becomes a niche contractor, not a platform.
• Value outcome: Market cap drifts to, say, A$5–10m (50–75% downside from here).

Base case (it becomes a small but real platform)

• Revenue steps up into, say, A$15–20m over 5 years.
• ARR becomes majority of revenue, margins improve; close to or at cash-flow breakeven.
• Market gives it, say, 2–3x sales on A$15m → A$30–45m market cap.
• Value outcome: roughly 2x from here if execution is decent.

Bull case (they become the de-facto standard in ANZ + some international)

• Dozens/hundreds of xBots deployed; SiteTube is embedded in daily workflows across many miners, plus extra verticals (infra, pipelines, enviro, maybe defence).
• Revenue pushes toward A$30m+, with healthy software/data margins.
• Market is happy to pay 3–4x sales for sticky mining-infra SaaS.
• Value outcome: A$90–120m+ cap = 4–6x from here (with optional M&A premium).

None of that is guaranteed, but the skew is “meaningful upside if they keep executing, big downside if they mis-step” – classic microcap optionality.

What I’d actually do (if I were you)

Given what Chris said + the numbers:

• I would not sell out here if I already owned it and could emotionally/financially wear a 50–70% drawdown.
• I’d treat RKT as a speculative “option on being the mining-data standard”:
• portfolio sizing: small satellite position (e.g. low single-digit % of portfolio, not core).
• I’d consider adding on material pullbacks if:
• ARR continues to grow at a decent clip, and
• they keep narrowing cash burn without stupidly dilutive raises.

And I’d monitor three things like a hawk:

1. ARR & data/software as % of revenue – is the “data company” story getting real?
2. Cash runway vs burn – are they clearly on track to breakeven before they need another big raise?
3. Depth of miner adoption – are BHP/Rio/Anglo/Vault moving from 1–2 units to many, and embedding SiteTube deeper?

If those three trend the right way over the next 12–24 months, the future value case improves a lot. If ARR stalls, burn increases, or big miners slow expansion, I’d reassess and potentially cut.

• That’s exactly what you want to hear if you’re betting on usage-based + SaaS monetisation.

Strong early signs of software stickiness.

• SiteTube user base has grown to ~650 users across ~8 enterprise customers, purely by internal sharing (no proactive “customer success” yet).
• ~11% log in more than twice a day, ~70% at least once a week. That’s toothbrush-level engagement for a niche industrial tool.
• If SiteTube and integrations don’t become deeply embedded, RKT could get undercut by bigger overseas players with similar DIAB offerings.

Regulation & autonomy risk.

• CASA still wants “a human in the loop”; full unmanned scaling will take time and lobbying.
• If autonomy rules evolve slowly, the labour-savings story is throttled, and cost to serve stays higher.

Concentration risk.

• A lot of ARR and growth is tied to a handful of miners (BHP, Rio, Gold Fields, Vault, Anglo).
• Great logos, but if any one chooses another vendor or in-houses a solution, that hurts.

“Photocopier on every site” may be true over 10–15 years, not 3–5.

• The TAM is big, but adoption curves in mining are slow; budget cycles, safety, union, and cultural inertia all drag it out.

Recent “we should have pushed harder” comment.

• That could foreshadow them pivoting from tight discipline to more aggressive spend now that they smell opportunity.

//end