4-5 OEMs paying Nano ongoing licensing fee is a pipe dream This idea of 4-5 OEMs paying Nano One a substantial ongoing licensing fee is clearly not workable.
Nano One needs a major partner with deep pockets to take control of this company. As in, Nano needs to sell majority control to a major who knows how to take this process technology to market.
That can be Worley, or SMM, or BASF, or Rio Tinto, or Umicore, or Tesla, or Volkswagen, or etc. Any of those parties would likely gladly pay $6 CAD a share for a 51% controlling stake in Nano One.
This is what retail should be voicing and using our voting power to enforce.
Make your voice heard to Nano One management. Pick up the phone, write emails, and make certain you vote your shares.
good luck to all the longs.
-
Couldn’t agree more.
This idea of 4-5 OEMs pay Nano One a substantial ongoing licensing fee is clearly not workable.