I saw a lengthy post on HC...while searching for diamond in the rough information (go on admit it, many of us are drawn to the allure of HC...)

I found another use for GenAI. I took this post, and asked chatgpt to assess for accuracy, ramping, and compare it to the other notes and analysis it has done for me. I found the following to be quite useful for seeing how words are used to create bias. My critical thinking skills know the bias is there, but it is sometimes unsure how to discern it.

chatpgt Output:

This is a good post to analyse because it’s not pure nonsense, but it does mix valid observations, optimistic extrapolation, and classic HotCopper ramping techniques. I’ll be very explicit and separate what is true, what is plausible but stretched, and what crosses into pumping — then compare it to what we actually know from filings, interviews, and earlier analysis.

1. High-level verdict

Overall classification:

Optimistic extrapolation with mild ramping elements

—not fraudulent, not insane, but selectively bullish and probability-blind.

This person:

• Understands the business better than average HC posters
• Is directionally aligned with management’s strategy
• But overstates certainty, compresses timelines, and ignores execution & dilution risk

This is not a scam post — it’s an enthusiastic bull case presented as inevitability.

2. Point-by-point truth check

A. “True inflection point for the business this quarter”

Assessment: Partially true, phrasing exaggerated

Reality:

• Yes, RKT has:
• Increasing xBot deployments
• Improving QoQ revenue
• Growing ARR
• But:
• Still loss-making
• Still cash-flow negative without raises
• Still early in scale

Calling it a “true inflection point” implies irreversibility.

That is not yet justified.

Better phrasing:

“Early signs of inflection if execution continues”

This is a bullish narrative leap, not a falsity.

B. “BHP opportunity is massive, cannot be understated”

Assessment: True in principle, dangerous in implication

Reality:

• Yes, BHP is enormous
• Yes, BMA expanding from 1–2 units to multiple double units is real and meaningful
• Yes, Tier-1 miners expanding usage is exactly the right signal

But missing context:

• BHP vendors are rarely exclusive
• Expansion ≠ standardisation
• BHP trials many technologies in parallel

This poster implicitly treats expansion = inevitable rollout

That’s not how miners behave.

Verdict: Correct directionally, overstated in certainty.

C. “6 x double units → more flight time → more billable hours”

Assessment: Structurally correct

This aligns with:

• What Chris said about 10x flight uplift
• The recurring / usage-based revenue model
• Our earlier conclusions about volume elasticity

This is one of the strongest parts of the post.

D. “BMA contract only until June 2026 → 3–5 year deal likely next quarter”

Assessment: Speculative leap

What’s true:

• Contract is time-limited
• Management has said discussions for extensions are ongoing

What’s speculative:

• “Could realistically land next quarter”
• “Multiples of recent contract size”

Mining procurement cycles are slow, legal-heavy, and conservative.

This is hope framed as timing confidence — a classic HC move.

E. “Iron ore division alone could 2–3x ARR without much effort”

Assessment: This is ramping

This is where the post crosses into bull fantasy compression.

Problems:

• “Without much effort” is flatly wrong
• Iron ore ops are:
• Larger
• More regulated
• More risk-averse
• Scaling requires:
• Hardware capex
• Support staff
• Regulatory approvals
• Integration effort

Yes, theoretical TAM is huge

No, ARR does not triple easily

This is TAM ≠ revenue confusion, a classic retail trap.

F. “Moat = CASA + BVLOS + Tier-1 onboarding”

Assessment: Mostly true, but incomplete

Correct:

• CASA + BVLOS approvals are non-trivial
• Tier-1 onboarding is painful and time-consuming
• This creates switching friction

Missing:

• This is a time moat, not a permanent moat
• Large global players can replicate approvals given incentive

Still, this is a fair and grounded point, not ramping.

G. “Cost cutting at miners → automation demand tailwind”

Assessment: Macro-correct

This aligns with:

• Industry trend
• Chris’s commentary
• Labour shortages
• Safety + risk reduction incentives

This is a real secular tailwind, not hype.

H. “Left-field contracts in next 6–12 months”

Assessment: Speculative optimism

Possible? Yes.

Probable? Unknown.

Guaranteed? No.

This is narrative stacking — adding upside layers without probability weighting.

I. “Sitetube becomes profit centre, largest shareholder adds leverage”

Assessment: ⚠️ Plausible, not proven

We agree:

• SiteTube is the real long-term value
• Deeper workflow embedding increases stickiness

But:

• Monetisation is still early
• Margins not yet visible
• “Largest shareholder magic” is hand-waving

This is reasonable optimism, not evidence.

J. “Wild cards: Rio, Anglo, Vic Water, Police”

Assessment: Classic HC optionality stacking

This is textbook:

“Here are 4 upside lottery tickets, any one could land”

Nothing false — but no probabilities, no timelines, no downsides.

This is how ramp posts inflate perceived certainty.

K. “Altor exit managed well”

Assessment: Fair

Yes:

• Overhang risk reduced
• Placement rather than drip-selling was positive

This is a legitimate bullish point.

L. Technical price targets (1.7c → 2.2c → 2.9c → 4.5c)

Assessment: Pure trading rhetoric

• No connection to fundamentals
• No valuation logic
• Anchors readers emotionally to upside numbers

This is classic pump garnish.

M. “I’ve bought more and will keep adding”

Assessment: Subtle social proof

Not illegal, not wrong — but:

• Signals confidence to influence others
• Reinforces bullish bias

3. Comparison to what we know

Area This post Our analysis Business modelCorrectCorrectTier-1 validation Correct Correct ARR growth Optimistic Cautiously positive Timeline Aggressive Conservative Scaling ease Underestimated Emphasised difficulty Risk & dilution Ignored Central concernOptionality Overstacked Probability-weighted Valuation Implied upside Skewed, not guaranteed

Key difference:

We think RKT is a high-quality option

This poster treats it as an inevitability

4. Is this ramping?

Answer:

Yes — mild, narrative-based ramping

Characteristics present:

• Certainty language (“will”, “without much effort”)
• Timeline compression
• TAM inflation
• Optionality stacking
• Technical price anchoring

But:

• Not deceptive
• Not false
• Not a dump-and-run post

This is a believer’s bull thesis, not a scam.

5. What you should take from it

What to keep:

• Tier-1 expansion matters
• xBot scale economics are real
• Software embedding is key
• Structural mining tailwinds exist

What to discount heavily:

• Speed of ARR explosion
• Ease of scaling
• Implied inevitability of iron ore rollout
• Price targets divorced from cash flow

Final recommendation (consistent with earlier)

RKT remains:

• A credible long-term speculative investment
• An option on becoming mining data infrastructure
• Still execution- and funding-risk heavy

This post does not invalidate your thesis,

but it overstates near-term certainty and upside speed.

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