Looks to me, if nothing else, like that might answer some of the questions re the intended future structuring... if the bits we can see in that element of structure they have announced are "deals" done with two separate customers ? Looks like it could be two separate "takers" participating in funding some portion of the "development" effort, that, with success, should enable them to better meet their future needs ?
I can't think of another more obvious potential, off the top of my head... but, I suppose there isn't a reason in the logic that would require the participants to be "customers"... only, its a "relative cost and relative value" issue for customers... and a "relative value" issue for others.
I guess one way you could look at it, if you were a customer, would be that providing development funding $ for a % interest would be an upfront cost you are willing to take on, in order to purchase risk, in order to have successful management of that risk enable you in getting a permanent future discount in the cost of materials relative to your non-vertically integrated competitors who AREN'T getting any "ownership percentage discounts" from their own suppliers ?
If you own 10% or 20% of your supplier, the impact that will have on your future materials costs relative to your competitors future materials costs... is a dual function of future product pricing vs. current cost of investment... and the relative value element in terms of the current % discount in value relative to future value.
So, the percentage in ownership, itself, should give you a future % price discount relative to your competitors... while the current cost vs. the future value of that discount will define what the real impact of that discount is on the bottom line.
Then, if SRSR is truly capable of delivering a better quality niobium product, while also solving customers other problems, and doing it for less $/kilo than other producers are able to do it... those who participate as % owners will benefit MORE from the gap in the margin between SRSR's costs and SRSR's competitors costs...
One of the things that probably means... is that they won't really have an interest in pushing SRSR to sell "more" while doing it at prices below the current market... because their own relative competitive advantage will tend to be optimized by expanding the impact of the % difference in the SRSR margin, not by narrowing the margin... so, the higher future price that niobium demands, the more significant their competitive advantage becomes as the value of the discount expands.
I think you need to see it, from their perspective, as both a linear "future supply cost management issue" and as a less linear niobium futures arbitrage opportunity... where their future benefit is defined by two things: one, by the the current cost and future value of the future "price discount" they get through % ownership, and, two, by the investment cost of the "niobium futures and options" they're buying... and the future value they might have.
I'm sure eyes are glazing over, by now... but, that is what I'm going to be most interested in seeing from here as the situation unfolds... that element in the impact on the market, and how the structure they develop will tend to impact product pricing.
For now... it looks like they have an agreement (or, two) that will see them to and through the next rounds in development, at least... perhaps much farther...
And, that is an amazing and valuable thing...
There is still more to learn, no doubt, and they will still have to "do it", of course, and etc., but, the deal they have now appears to be WAY, WAY closer to the high end in my expectations than it is to the lower end in the range of potentials that had been discussed here.
That means it will take a bit longer to "happen" than some here might like. I still think dmbao probably has a good bead on the timelines on which "happening" is likely. But, it also means that the successful result for investors, when is HAS happened, is going to be a significant multiple of what would have been possible in less time.
It is also worth pointing out, still, that there is almost always a difference or a disconnect that exists between what "happening" means in terms of "happening in the business"... and what "happening" means in terms of "happening in the market"... with there also being two very, very different elements in the focus and management of the two interpretations of "happening"...
There are a lot of pinkie investors and traders who couldn't care less about, or who couldn't even recognize "real value" if it whacked 'em up side the head...
So, the event horizons that will matter here will be BOTH those tied to "events" in "the business" as they proceed to move forward in development... and those tied to "events" in "the market"... as they proceed to move forward in enabling market recognition of the nature of the degree and magnitude of the undervaluation that exists here now.
Some people here seem to be thinking that dmbao's estimates re the timeline on "accomplishments in the business" is "a source of problems" for the market... since things are going to take so long.
I think they're probably seeing it wrong...
AI
.JPG)
Market Data 
Markets 
