Unsure if anyone is watching this today?

Can't access it as i am working, if anyone watches appreciate any comments and observations.

Accumulating IRL and SM

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.

Nice Million-dollar deal - feel like this will be one to watch

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-03038507-6A1303909&v=undefined

Disc - Accumulating

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

Overview raised over $21m since 2018. Market Capital Today is $19.3m at todays price of $0.017.

·      November 2025 Raises $4m at $0.015 from new and existing institutional and sophisticated investors. https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20251103/pdf/06rfplpvw3vh7v.pdf

·      October 2024 Raises $3.35m, $2.5m institutional, $880,240 from SPP at $0.013 per share. https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20241127/pdf/06bwzytxshkm3k.pdf

·      August 2024 Secures $1m Unsecured Debt Finance with ACM, a wholly subsidiary of Altor Capital. *%pa interest rate over a 42 month term. https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20240827/pdf/0672grc3hcvnnm.pdf

·      December 2023 Raised $1.1m from professional and sophisticated investors at $0.009 per share https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20231204/pdf/05y4rz5qh6w61c.pdf

·      June 2023 Change of Name to RocketDNA (Formerly Delta Drone Int)

·      January 2022 Delta Drone Divest ParaZero for A$6m to Nasdaq listed Medigus https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20220128/pdf/455cm62p2xdwdh.pdf

·      December 2020 Change of Name to Delta Drone International Limited (Formerly ParaZero)

·      October 2020 Raised $5m at share price $0.04 to merge with Delta Drone https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20201013/pdf/44nmx53n1s2q93.pdf

·      October 2019 Raised AU$642 at $0.06 per share from institutional and sophisticated investors. https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20191024/pdf/449tg4ck4nf5r0.pdf

·      April 2019 Raised A$1.54m at $0.075 per share from institutional and sophisticated investors. https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190412/pdf/44487pzmpzldzp.pdf

·      December 2018 Raised $846,240 at $0.10 per sharehttps://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190124/pdf/4421tgb3y9w7g0.pdf

·      IPO June 2018 at issue price $0.20 per share to raise $5m

Market Cap of $19.33m

An interesting company, albeit one still at a relatively early stage.

RocketDNA (which really would be better named DroneDNA) seems to be heading in the right direction by pivoting away from a commodity-like manual services business to an automated, data-centric "Drone-in-a-Box" model.

I haven't done any due diligence on the business, but taking Chris at face value a few things stood out.

First, they seem to have hit upon something that offers customers genuine utility and material cost savings. I really liked their commercial approach: essentially dropping the hardware on-site and charging on a "pay-per-use" basis initially to de-risk the decision for the customer. Given the explosive growth in flight numbers -- from ~20 flights a month manually to ~180+ flights autonomously -- it seems to be striking a chord with users. Having the public blessing of a tier 1 giant like Rio Tinto (who co-produced a video validating the tech) seems noteworthy too. If these majors genuinely see value, the expansion opportunity across their hundreds of global sites is nothing to sneeze at.

It's always nice to have a founder at the helm too (the listed entity is actually a product of various mergers, but he founded the underlying operational business 'Rocketmine' and has been in the trenches for over 12 years). He seems to have a clear, grounded understanding that they need to solve actual pain points, like labour shortages and safety, rather than just pushing a shiny narrative about drones. I also appreciated his discipline regarding product strategy; he explicitly stated they don't want to be "everything to everyone," but rather aim to solve "80% of the problems really well" to ensure scalability.

There seems to be a bit of optionality here too. As Chris put it, the hardware is just the "ticket to the game". The real moat and margin potential lie in the downstream "Data as a Service" managing, processing, and interpreting the visual data for various mine departments (geology, environmental, etc.) that previously couldn't access it. He even hinted at future integrations where autonomous mine machinery could trigger drone flights automatically, without human intervention.

He did mention the possibility of M&A to facilitate overseas expansion, but that seemed a distant priority given the sheer size of the greenfield opportunity right here in Australia. At least, I hope it is. Too much capital has been wasted by Aussie small caps chasing global ambitions before they were ready.

Of course, this is a nano-cap with plenty of risks. While revenues are growing nicely (especially the 40% bump in the automated division), they are still cash flow negative. There is also likely a decent amount of ongoing development cost required to mature the software and security features to enterprise standards. Still, if the xBot rollout continues to show traction, it will serve as a potent demonstration that there is real, recurring demand for this kind of industrial automation.

You can access the transcript here: RocketDNA Transcript.pdf

And the AI summary is:

Company Strategy & Evolution

• Strategic Pivot: RocketDNA is transitioning from a traditional labor-intensive drone services provider (manual flights) to a technology-focused "Drone-in-a-Box" (autonomous hardware) and data automation company.
• The "Land and Expand" Model: The company employs a strategy of landing initial units (often via trials) which then become permanent fixtures, leading to fleet expansion as customers find more use cases.
• Long-Term Vision: Clark views RocketDNA ultimately as a data company rather than just a hardware operator, with the drone being merely the tool for data capture.

The "xBot" Solution (Hardware & Operations)

• Autonomous Infrastructure: The "xBot" is a ruggedized docking station that allows drones to take off, land, recharge, and upload data autonomously, without a pilot on-site.
• Remote Operations: Pilots are located in Remote Operating Centers (ROCs) in Perth and Adelaide, monitoring flights safely away from the mine pit.
• Reliability: The technology has reached a high level of maturity; out of nearly 30,000 missions, there have been only ~3 instances where the drone failed to land in the box (due to extreme weather), creating a <1% failure rate.
• Ease of Deployment: The units are assembled on a skid in Perth and designed for a "drop and go" deployment, operational within hours of arriving on site.

The Software Moat (SiteTube)

• Solving Data Friction: The real value proposition lies in SiteTube, their proprietary software that visualizes drone data. It solves the "interoperability" problem by ingesting data and making it immediately accessible via a web browser.
• User Experience vs. Legacy Software: Traditional mine site software is expensive (~$30k/seat), complex (requires weeks of training), and restricted to engineers. SiteTube democratizes this data, allowing diverse teams (environment, geology, management) to view site conditions instantly.
• High Engagement: The software has seen organic growth with zero internal marketing; over 650 enterprise users are registered, with ~11% logging in more than twice a day.

Market Dynamics & The Problem Solved

• Mining Skills Crisis: The primary driver for adoption is the severe shortage of skilled labor. Clark noted that fewer than 100 mining engineers graduated in Australia recently, and only 42% of surveyor roles are currently filled.
• Operational Bottlenecks: Manual surveyors are overworked and often ignore small data requests. An autonomous system moves a site from doing ~20 flights a month (manual) to 180–200 flights a month (autonomous), unlocking massive amounts of latent data demand.
• Safety & Efficiency: The system removes staff from dangerous open-pit environments and dangerous heat/dust conditions.

Commercials & Revenue Model

• Recurring Revenue: The business model is shifting toward recurring revenue streams (hardware lease + data subscription), providing greater financial visibility compared to one-off project work.
• Low Barrier to Entry: To overcome enterprise risk aversion, they offer "pay-per-use" or trial models. This de-risks the adoption for miners, who typically find the immediate ROI compels them to keep the unit permanently.
• Recent Growth: Revenue for the September quarter was ~$1.875m (up 13%), but significantly, xBot revenue was up 40%, validating the pivot strategy.
• Customer Validation: Major contracts with Rio Tinto (trial converted to 2-year deal) and BHP/BMA (recent ~$1.3m-$1.4m in orders) serve as key reference cases.

Future Outlook & Capital

• Focus on Australia: While they have African operations, the immediate focus is the Australian market due to the sheer size of the opportunity and the specific labor dynamics here.
• Product Roadmap: Future developments include Lidar integration for night flights and integrating with autonomous mine trucks to trigger drone flights automatically based on alarms or events.
• Capital Discipline: Clark emphasized a disciplined approach to spending, aiming for sustainable growth rather than "growing broke," acknowledging the need to balance R&D with cash preservation.

Hi Andrew,

@Strawman would it be possible to send an Invite to Rocket DNA (RKT)

https://www.rocketdna.com/au

They provide autonomous drone technology primarily for mines sites, got some big companies using the Xbot tech and a recent $4 Million placement where management took up $500k

Would love to know more about them.

Disc Not held

Cheers