Lebby isn’t perfect and my complaints sit with communication and shareholder expectations. That’s undeniably an issue.
I do not doubt his ability to lock in the best deal for LWLG. I’ve spent multiple hours with him in person and I promise you we are in good hands.
They’re clearly working with an end-user for these modulators and I’ve seen multiple confirmations from MZ/LWLG that this customer is large.
The recent December shareholder letter mentioned more reliability testing. After that, I theorized that the end user must be requesting data from multiple foundry runs. Makes sense to me.
I basically got confirmation of that Sunday night at the panel. Lebby mentioned they have been building a statistical model for devices being produced.
The billion dollar question is…when is enough, enough?
The only real goal that has yet to happen is a tech transfer to a foundry. A question that will be asked in May will revolve around why did the company previously make that a goal knowing the work that still needed to be done.
My main guess is the ‘ALD’ issue. That was a significant delay IMO.
Also, I think the original foundry tech transfer goal revolved around a general material license/know-how transfer that would allow foundry customers access to the technology with no predetermined device in mind. I think there was a change in strategy where LWLG wanted to get the PICs optimized and complete (creating a product) before letting the wild have access to the EOP. In hindsight, this appears to create the most value for the company (yet to be seen of course).
Anyway…I’m rambling a bit.
I still see nothing but progress for LWLG and an industry that is increasingly becoming willing to accept a new technology like this.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
