Just spent an hour on the phone with $trit IR:
1) company has 56 employees of which 6 are engineers related to the platform who are managed by Ashish. The key is in addition they outsource to India additional 50-80 tech contractors at any given time who they used to launch Kratos

2) srinivas is a controlling investor in Rhodium but company has full time CEO and CFO and he doesnt control and is not privy to the day to day operations of the company. $trit started through him seeing a need for a better way to trade more effectively through Rhodium experience
They of course used Rhodium & its relationships with parties it does business with as the first customers of their platform which youd expect. In June 2019 related party rev was 100%, down to 26.5% by Feb 2020 & last q down to under 10% as they onboard more 3rd parties.
As for the digital coin the company initially thought launching a coin would be a good way to solve the issue however after further study shelved it. They gave notice to everyone they would burn the coin and allowed them to redeem. No digital coin now at all
Supply chain finance model coming out in Feb which they expect to have similar fee to trade finance module which is very profitable. Estimates for next yr already include this. The other two modules of credit insurance and logistics dont currently plan to monetize
On question of what is their moat they say they are in a segment of the market that the big banks who own the majority of their competitors through consortiums dont like due to capital rules and are working to add free modules to their platform to make them more sticky (above)
Some things out of the short report. The company srivinas worked at in the US he sold in 2010 and the short report used glass door reviews from 2013 and 2015 which said mgmt is bad against him. Thats a full 3-5 years later and he had no knowledge of what mgmt did after he left
On question of Jim Groh, said that he was part of a battery company which went from 2 to 8 or 10 a share or so and then left. Company went under 10 years or so later after Jim left yet that was in the short report used against him.
In general the short report didnt uncover anything new but used what the company had itself publicly disclosed in their F4 meaning that it was all out out there by the company already.
A small portion of the stocks float is trading for retail investors as the majority is owned by institutions such as steve cohen, fidelity, and many other large institutional investors taking large stakes in the company with some having average hold times of 7 years
Im a pretty skeptical guy as you can tell from my posts on tesla fubo ozon and others so i always try to see the other side but again i came away from the call feeling that what they said makes sense and that the oppty is here and that this is not a fraud.
Interested to hear feedback from @seeroy on his demo of platform next wk. I’ll remain long the stock after the call & feel better about it regardless of the short term volatility/noise. Feel like lot of criticism are ppl loosely connecting things & not knowing the tech/business

More from Trading

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".