You might be right Learner but I think we might be thinking on different timescales.  I remember watching Beyond 2000 and the like in the late '80s and '90s and seeing de rigueur use of autonomous vehicles, cars that turn into planes, scram jets that would allow people to commute from Sydney to London each day, domestic robots in every house, endless fusion energy...and for the most part the time scales were 5 to 10 years away.  And mainly that's where they've stayed...still 5 to 10 years away (some of them seem further away now then back then!).  Maybe this time is different, but I suspect not...

@Learner

Yeah mate. You raise a good point. I would offer the following vingette as an expansion on your thoughts.

One of my friends works for a small regional bank. One of the roles of a group of staff is to assess and approve loans by a manual method of multiple spreadsheet claculations. The IT guy offered to build an AI to improve efficiencies. His boss groaned and moaned but eventually relented.

After 6 months of sandbox testing, the IT guy was presenting his results to the boss. The IT guy presented an error rate by the AI of 1%, and the boss said "see, its not worth it, we cannot have errors!". Then the IT shows the teams human error rate... 11%. And boss still didn't get it, and didn't implement the AI.

@SebastianG,

Yes it does. It has a computer chip - that is its product - as simple as that. Said computer chip is placed in a customers product and programmed to do something. 

BRN had a small production run where it provided chips to its EAP or Early Access Program customers. This has been a sort of 'proof of concept' and a big success from what I understand. And from what I have read, BRN now have deals with chip makers to make the Akida chip at production level quantities. Happy to be corrected on this though!

Hi mate,

I would offer that it remains not understood properly. I would have said pre-juy 2020 that there was extreme risk with no phsyical demo chips produced. But now with demo chips printed, and customers proving their use (hidden by NDA), I think the risk has reduced enough as the company now has a product.

I do agree with you (as a bias check on myself), as there are plenty of companies that had the magic and failed in the commericalisation step.

@reddogaustin @slymeat

had a good read through of the investment thesis yesterday. Also a bit of background digging around. 
I am not ever going to be in a position whether this is going to be a success or not. Additionally, the point that it becomes clear whether the Akida chip is all its cracked up to be, will be when the announce exponential sales. At that point I suspect it will be too late from an investment point of view as the price will then reflect future earnings. 
The only point I would make regarding your valuation and the investment thesis rational is the "if we can get 2% we will be worth....1 MILLION dollars. I mean one HUNDRED million dollars! Mwuhahaha. (Sorry, just recently rewatched Austin Powers with the kids)
it was at least a change from the figure of 1% which is usually thrown around as the justification of why a company could be worth x y or z. This technique is usually a big red flag in my book. 
not saying it is in this case, but whenever I see that in the thesis it makes me instantly very very cautious. 
best of luck to all holders. It would be great to see. This sort of successful industry based out of Australia 

@Chagsy

I don't disagree. I often dislike company presentations that talk about grandiose TAMs and how much they are going to "capture".

However, in this situation BRN is in the space of enabling transformative technologies such as AI and IoT. These are generational technology changes and those changes will bring about immense scale - doubling or quadrupling the number of devices on the internet (hence the need for a better NBN!!). The akida chips have so many use cases that it is impossible to model the magnitude, so I choose to simplify the model by using said method of X% of TAM. Also note that those TAMs came from a google search, and those TAMs are just a guess from some stranger somewhere. 

I also see this discussion as the benefit of Strawman. I challenged your assumptions and bias with my blue sky valuation and you in turn challenge my valuation, allowing me to question and modify when I learn a consideration to add into my model.

And as you say, if/when the revenue comes rolling in, one can always buy-in then.

[edit: spelling... where is the spellchecker!]

Great bear case Learner. You should post this as a Bear Case Straw; I'm sure the community would find it valuable.