Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You’re too narrow visioned. Search the globe and see what other countries seem to be moving toward. The app has a definite market, but will it take market share with the other apps being rolled out about now? That’s the only question I have.
I can attest that the app is still in beta testing. I bought the IOS version and found a few things that I thought weren’t the best approach on registering for your profile. I even had an issue that they hadn’t seen before. I had some correspondence about the issue and even talked to one of the employees working on the development. I can honestly say they seemed pretty excited about what they were doing.
Now the true test, can they bring it out of beta and into a revenue generating app somewhere in the world.
Honestly, the one of the best question you’ve ever proposed, lol.
I know I was talking about this with a friend the other day. My thought was relative to the current market for quantum dots in displays. Who are the current suppliers of that market? Samsung and Nanosys have the market cornered.
Who is one of Nanosys key investors? Samsung Investment Group is a major investor if you go back years of Nanosys news.
What quantum dot manufacture got bought by Samsung when they were going bankrupt? QD Vision IP was purchased by Samsung.
At least for the sake of Samsung, even if QMC could produce better and cheaper, Samsung may have financial incentives to use Nanosys or Nanosys IP. It may be more profitable for them considering their ROI as an investor in Nanosys.
I’m not saying this is necessarily the reason that QMC hasn’t sold quantum dots, but it’s food for thought on why they may have not entered the display market with Samsung, among many other factors for that market.
If QMC did have IP of value, maybe Samsung thought they’d wait out QMC and buy them like they did QD Vision for pennies on the dollar.
Yes, limited rapid results test. I know of at least on facility in York county that does same day testing, but it’s first come first served. We have contract staffing the use it so they can get back to work sooner. They typically end up spending a whole day there from what I’m told.
Over stating or relaying info that was inaccurate or unverified info from partner is not fraud, just incompetence or being too trusting.
Or there was an actual factory started and then the deal fell through. There’s a number of reasons why the info could had been true at the moment, therefore not a fraud.
Just because things start and don’t finish didn’t mean it fraud. Businesses lose contracts all the time for failure to deliver or perform.
But, keep up your tirade. Peace out!
So Steve has waited all these years to commit fraud just to get some hype and hope to cause a share price increase?
We’ve been setting at these price levels for a long time. Why wait until now to commit fraud? Why not 5 years ago or last year?
Also, seriously, the theory is that multiple people and other companies are now conspiring to pretend to release a mobile app while trying to dodge lawsuits or prosecution for fraud?
I know I’m not happy with the company’s financial filing status, but you’ve jumped the shark.
Wow! This board has really turned over the past year.
Now the conspiracy theory is that QMC paid another company, with a substantial business in medical specimen testing, to commit fraud?
Because getting paid to allow a PR is fraud!
Yes, I don’t necessarily think repeat testing will occur, but I’ve coworkers who due to exposure to someone diagnosed have had to have repeat testing. It’s all relative as to the reason for the repeat testing.
I can speak for how my employer is handling this. You are right, our employees don’t have to get tested.
They have a choice, get tested and return to work, or take 2 weeks off. Most seem to prefer continued work. Some have quit because they took a stand a refused to be tested and just didn’t want to put up with being off work.
$105,000 is a hefty position, at least in my opinion.
Probably just system timing between MMs and the market. Shows 9:30 for the 775 shares traded today. The MM may have been a second behind the market which allowed small amount to clear.
Interesting 2.6 million bid at 2 cents sitting on CDEL on Level 2.
$52,000 is a substantial chunk of change for many of us.
Who’s saying anything about actual immunity? Not sure that I’d did.
It’s about being initially exposed to a virus which usually makes it less likely to contract the next strain.
I would simply argue, what is the better solution. Often in engineering and business, you take the best alternative available, not because of accuracy, etc., but because you have to make a choice in the moment and move forward.
Ok. Sorry didn’t mean to infer.
My point is that any day someone could develop or prove that accuracy is higher for any number of tests. What then for antibody testing?
This is a rhetorical question! Have a good evening.
If the antibody tests are as inaccurate as you say, then yes, that’s a problem. But what if a test becomes available that is significantly more accurate? Then do we have a valid use of antibody testing.
I’ve no clue as to the numbers of asymptomatic. There doesn’t seem to be any data on it since they seem focused on infections only.
You’re assuming that a majority actually test negative. What is the percentage of asymptotic? I’ve not see estimates on that.
I know a coworker said he had a mild cold and now is testing positive for Covid.
We have another who didn’t have a fever all week but wanted to go to doctor for a persistent cough.
I don’t think we have accurate data on the exposure to this as testing of the general population is still pretty much non-existent. You have to have a known diagnosed exposure or have significant symptoms to get tested even to this date in SC and N.C.
You’re accuracy argument only holds in the short term results. Accuracy depends on timing of testing. Results are over 90% accurate the further out after contraction. The idea of antibody testing would be to test those further out from contraction to show they had antibodies.
https://www.cochrane.org/news/new-cochrane-review-assesses-how-accurate-antibody-tests-are-detecting-covid-19
Ok. I’m on vacation and thought I’d chime in on this subject of tracking of testing.
While you may not be able to mandate antibody testing, who would volunteer to take one? I know if would if I didn’t have to get continued nose swabs which are extremely uncomfortable.
Also, Covid testing validation would be a lot easier to show an employer after testing if an app was all that was required to share the validation.
I work for a construction company. Because of our close proximity to all the other trades at the sites and our meetings with customers, our team members keep getting exposed to Covid infections and have to get tested. One employee the other day stated he’d had the antibody test and already had Covid before we were really tracking it late last year. Yet, he just had to go get tested again for Covid and quarantine because a customer’s rep was just diagnosed with Covid.
It’s very disruptive to our business and individuals. I think a solution that required less nose swabs would be voluntarily widely accepted by my fellow employees.
We do the same thing here, but it’s only effective for those with symptoms. Asymptomatic people don’t have fevers.
My VP just went to get tested and will be working from home for awhile because a customer who he was sitting next two this week was just diagnosed. Guess what, the guy diagnosed was checked for fever when entering the building.
I don’t know what the solution is, but checking for antibodies is better than the current system of checking for fever.
How Blockchain and Immunization Passports Could Help Us Re-Open
The coming battle to balance privacy and safety...
By Brent Wistrom -April 21, 2020
Pete Harris remembers his last big social outing quiet well. As is the case for many of us, it was a couple months ago in February. Pre-pandemic.
Harris was hanging out with one hundred plus people gathered in south Austin at the MedToMarket accelerator and coworking space. As executive director of the Austin Blockchain Collective, he was stoked to help lead a conference with fresh research from Dell Medical School and industry speakers including IBM’s global blockchain leader speaking on cutting edge topics.
“Frankly, it was bloody amazing,” he recalled, now on a Zoom call with a reporter.
The technologists at the conference were focused on the intersection of blockchain technology and health care — and the need to give people more control over their personal health data.
Coronavirus wasn’t yet part of our moment-to-moment lives, though Harris recalls a few conference goers saying coronavirus could soon be a problem in the United States.
A week or so later, SXSW was cancelled. Then, almost everything came screeching to a halt.
A lot has changed. But blockchain remains at the forefront of technologies that might help us get through the COVID-19 pandemic, and it could play a vital role in how we slowly and carefully get back to work and meeting with friends and colleagues.
Through platforms and apps developed by mainstream companies like IBM, blockchain has largely been proven out and has slowly entered our daily lives. At its base level, it provides a secure way to verify information while retaining privacy — i.e. preventing it from being used and abused like much of the data we’ve shared via social media.
And that means blockchain could be an attractive option in the weeks and months to come as COVID-19 test results help us understand and verify, to a degree, how safe it is to be around each other at work or in social settings.
That’s why Harris is excited about Quantum Materials Corp, a nanotechnology and blockchain company based south of Austin in San Marcos and a member of the Austin Blockchain Collective.
Quantum Materials is working on so-called immunization passports that would help people demonstrate they’re virus free and can work or socialize in some formats with some degree of certainty. And it can do so with a minimal degree of sharing personal and medical data that could be reused and resold like so much of our other personal data is.
“There’s a tremendous need there,” Harris said.
But, of course, nothing is 100% until a vaccine arrives. What Quantum Materials’ QDX HealthID Immunization Passport provides is a degree of certainty and robust privacy, said CEO Stephen B. Squires.
Quantum Materials was founded in 2007, an early comer to the field of the tiny superconductor particles we call quantum dots, which can be used in tracking and tracing in the supply chain. More recently, the company acquired Capstan, a blockchain startup led by technologist Jay Williams, who is known for leading the Austin Forum on Technology and Society conversations each month.
With that, the team built the QDX Ledger blockchain platform over the past year to tie together the digital ledger aspects of blockchain with the physical tracking capabilities of nanotechnology and quantum dots.
As the coronavirus pandemic took hold in Europe, a close associate in the U.K. who works with the World Nano Foundation and is on the pandemic council in the U.K. reached out to Squires about finding ways to track and trace test kits and test results.
“So we immediately took our platform and started doing what was necessary to modify it,” Squires said.
The resulting HealthID product that verifies testing kits is about to begin beta testing, and Squires said the company is working with several test kit companies and health care providers to have their kits validated through the new system. The HealthID app is slated to fully launch June 1.
At first, this type of tech would likely be used by government agencies to help assess risk to essential employees and verify their testing status. But it — or something like it — may be in the future for many of us as companies seek to bring workers back to warehouses, manufacturing facilities and offices.
Quantum Materials’ approach for consumers uses an app-based interface that provides a green, yellow or red indicator, as well as a QR code that can be scanned.
It tracks several methods of authenticating people being tested, who administered said tests and the test kits themselves. And that could be vital when considering whether someone could re-enter the workforce with a degree of certainty they aren’t likely to further spread the coronavirus.
“You want to be able to know that if your employer is checking you that they’re checking everybody and that then you know you’re returning to work in an environment that’s relatively safe,” Squires said.
Nothing is 100% safe right now, and top federal officials have warned that some of the test kits being marketed in the U.S. could be faulty.
Squires said he expects that as testing becomes more widespread, many people will be tested twice concurrently to improve accuracy. Meanwhile, questions remain about whether those who have recovered from COVID-19 will be immune and, if so, for how long and what kind of testing will be needed to verify that.
“I don’t think we’re going to get around having to do testing on a regular basis probably for the next year, and I think that, although we’re all anxious to get back to work, I think if we do it too quickly without some type of a foundation underpinning it, we’re going to end up with a second wave,” he said. “It’s almost inevitable. You can almost see the writing on the wall. I think that testing and tracking is going to be so important for us to be able to get people returning to work in safe environments.”
Already, companies including Amazon and General Motors are trying to find ways to test employees to help bring them back to work. But that’s happening as there aren’t enough tests in many locations for frontline health workers and caretakers. For many, corporate testing sites could be part of the near future.
Squires said a lot of how we return to work and prove we’re safe to be around will likely be shaped by new legislation. While in recent years there’s been some push back against vaccines, he said he expects that when a coronavirus vaccine does emerge, there will be a push to ensure people can show they’ve been vaccinated. But how we do that — and what information and freedoms we may give up in the process — could have long-term consequences.
“Personally, I hope that people don’t allow their fear and their motivation to get back to work to lead them to adopt a platform that’s going to expose their personal data, particularly their health data, even more,” he said. “That’s my big concern. I’ve seen this happen after 9/11, people get very complacent about their civil liberties and give up everything because of fear. I’m just hopeful that people don’t do that this time.”
https://www.americaninno.com/austin/inno-insights/how-blockchain-and-immunization-passports-could-help-us-re-open/
Lol! Technically correct! ;)
Technically not quite a year, lol. We have until September until they’re over a year late. ;)
They didn’t file the annual report, 10K, which was due in September. That was first late filing.
But, I’m with you on being mad about being so far behind on filings. I have shares that are still restricted and I couldn’t sell if I wanted because I need up to date filings to get an opinion to remove the restrictions.
Trying to gain isn’t savage capitalism. I believe in capitalism, but true capitalism takes all the value from people and the environment for the sake of extracting the maximum value for the seller. In order to prevent that detriment to people or the environment and the fact that humans can be selfish and try to maximize the value they earn at all cost, we need laws and regulations that balance the benefit to society with allowing people to sell products at the highest possible price without compromising the earth and other people. It’s as simple as that.
Thanks for sharing. I like the lesson in the video.
This virus is just one of many viruses to come. Each will be worse than the last as the viruses evolve faster than we do. I consider this a test run for civilization's response to a life threatening virus. If we can't manage to put systems and controls in place for something with such a low death rate, how can we expect to protect ourselves from a virus that kills something like 5%-10% infected.
How’s that share of zero profits going for you? I kind of think it sucks and will take any share of profits that puts me in the green at this point. It’s better than losing several $100k.
We all know that QMC is pretty much out of authorized shares and needs funds to support operations until they hopefully start some continued revenue from one of the qdot products. I’m just assuming the venture brought cash for continued operations in exchange for a piece of the future revenues, as you stated. How much? We’re all guessing, as you’ve alluded, until we see it in a filing.
What I take away from the venture is that someone likely saw potential in the tech or IP to drop $2 million? You don’t throw that cash around for the hell of it. The question for us all is what portion of profits does QMC get, of course 50% or anything is better than zero, out current status.
Story starts at about 3:40.
I check in on the Nano Magazine website a couple times a month since they had an article or two last year related to QMC's anti-counterfeiting technology.
This article related to COVID-19 testing using gold nano-particles posted a couple weeks ago, March 26. This is, of course, just one example of usage for gold nano-particles in the medical field. The magazine also has a recent article about cancer treatment using gold nano-particles.
Not sure if it counts, but it was mentioned in the update, "letter of intent."
Or lack experience on contract management. I would put QMC into this category based on what I know of those involved in the contract negotiations.
Agreed on importance, but I don’t know what the SEC filing requirements are for revisions. I can’t seem to find any guidance on it except for if it’s terminated. If they revised it, do they have to submit a new filing with very document change?
Apparently you live in perfect world. I’ve had to have changes to multiple contracts based on typos or missed wording that made the item legally read wrong. Call the people who wrote and reviewed them flawed, I guess. But they were also 300 page contracts.
I go through contract reviews constantly and there are always mistakes or items that our customers try to add that just are worded wrong. Small businesses don’t always have the luxury of large corporations with huge legal teams. They often have one attorney and the management team reviewing contracts which inevitably leads to missed errors since we’re all human and research collected on errors suggest that we make on average 3-6 errors per hour.
We're all human and errors exist in all contracts. I can't tell you how many errors I noted in the last couple contracts I managed after the contract was executed.
For those who want to easily read the conclusion in the opinion:
Consumer products only need authentication at the point of sale. I agree with you. A store could purchase the scanner and have it available for customers. There’s no need for consumers to own the scanner if they have access to a scanner and a blockchain service to validate the product is legit at the point of sale.
But they’re not getting revenue from production of qdots. They’re getting royalties from gross sales of solar cells, LED, and display applications per the agreement.
Amtronics will be producing in 2020, not QMC. Royalties would have to come from gross sale of products which they are stating are forecasted in 2021; which, as others have provided quotes from PRs and updates, has always been the forecast.
Must be responding to wrong post. I didn’t state that. But there is a March conference that has agenda listing QMC discussing a real life solution. Not sure if that will be a live demo or just a case study or example usage.