Crunchfish AB (publ) (CFISH) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Very welcome to this session from Vastra Hamnen Corporate Finance. I'm standing here with the CEO, Joachim Samuelsson of Crunchfish. And we will talk about the company's year-end report just released, and we will talk about what's happened and what's going on and perhaps a bit of an outlook as well.

We might get to that. Yes.

We might get to that. Brilliant. And also everyone who's watching can use the Q&A function to write in questions, and we will address as many topics as we can as we go along.

So let's start.

Yes. Let's go, Martin.

Yes. 2025, could you just tell us what happened?

Yes. I think certainly a very interesting year for us, very transformational, started in Q1 that we slimmed the whole business, focused the business on offline payments only by closing down our Gesture business, that I sort of was sad to let that great technology team go, but we are now a slimmer organization, and that's -- it was sort of a necessary move that we took in Q1. In Q2, we announced sort of -- we realized that offline payments is something that needs to be part of a payment system. So there is a system part of it, payment system. And then there are service providers. These are the ones that are using the system serving the end users. And we realize that these are 2 different roles, 2 different responsibilities. And we want to equip the system with the ability to receive offline payments, not necessarily make them because it's not their role. That's the role of the service providers. That realization was a turning point for us, and we announced that this is sort of a turnaround situation for us because now we could really approach national payment systems to say that why don't you integrate our technology, and then you could do that. We help you to receive payments in the system. The system is available. Everybody can receive. But we then, as a subsequent step, can equip the service provider with wallets. That's what we did in Q2 -- announced that. In Q3, we talked about this is going well. This is working. And we have got a lot of interest. We have been focused on India for many, many years.

In Q3, you traveled.

Yes, yes, yes. But we opened up from India to many more markets. But most importantly, we did get the opportunity to work with NPCI, which is the -- I don't know, that's the one you want to work with because they are the system operator of UPI, 20 billion transactions per year, but they also are -- they are now asked by the Reserve Bank of India to also do the Digital Rupee system. And Digital Rupee needs to work offline. And we work very, very close with them. We almost have a meeting every day with NPCI at the moment. So it's a great collaboration and looking forward to that, and I'm sure we will come back to that. But then Q4, it's actually been -- it's been behind the scenes, except that we put out a new website because there are some significant things that has happened in Q4 that I'm very happy that we have this interview so I can tell about. You can read it on the website sort of, and you can read it in our report. But Q4 gives sort of 3 big things. One is that we've understood that the way we do offline payments is -- yes, we always said technically, it's superb, but it is a superior architecture, a model to other models as well. And we have framed that, as we call it, governed offline payment, in a way that we can bound the risk. Offline means more risk than online payments, but we can bound that risk in a really nice way. The other models that exist don't really bound the risk in that way. We do, which is important for anyone who want to introduce this. Then what we did in Q4 is that we understood how our business model can be applied in the right way, which enables us to actually charge or get money from the system as well as the service providers, which is important in India and other places. But it's -- the business model has matured, and we described it. There is a whole section of that in the year-end report.

And we will talk about the business model as we go along as well.

But the third thing, and this is the sort of cool thing, is that everything -- now, as I said, in Q3, we started to realize that this is not India anymore, and it's not. It's moving to many, many other markets. And in many places, it's not press release-worthy yet, but it will be very, very soon. And that means, with an understanding of the business model, we can go in much more aggressively of how we should approach those opportunities. And it's not just India. It's much wider. And we can come back to that when we look at outlook 2026, as you said, we will do. But a lot of things has happened. And it's a really heavy sort of year-end report, but it's built on what we had already, in a way, was saying on the updated websites.

Yes. And the headline of the report is offline payments as critical infrastructure. How would you say that system operators have changed in their priorities or views of offline payment functionality?

Well, if you're going to do offline, if you want resilience that -- because, as we know, payment systems tend to work when everything works. It's sort of online has to be there and the system in the back end has to be up. But if you're going to do this on a national scale, at scale, as critical infrastructure, then you want to keep that the online world is still involved. You don't want to move money out of the online world. You want to keep it there. So you have that control before you move money. We have that. But you also want to constrain the spending ability. You -- Martin, you can't spend more offline than you actually control. So you want to have both those aspects. We uniquely have that. And we believe both aspects are absolutely key to have in an offline model. And that's why we are saying that governed offline architecture is the way to do offline payments. You can do it in other ways, but you sacrifice things on risk, on scalability, on interoperability if you're using other models. But governed offline models gives you what you want to have it as critical infrastructure in a payment system.

Yes. So -- I mean the system operators have obviously thought about this, but have they changed the view since you've approached them with your new...

I think we confused them before, to be honest. And that's why we needed to change the -- because we appeared as a sort of like a fintech company, like this offline is a feature and it's almost like -- look like -- no one -- they didn't really understand us. A reason for changing the whole website is to appear like an infrastructure company; a serious infrastructure company that actually can give them as an infrastructural part of their payment system, not just as a feature. Before, I think our argumentation, we were a little bit all over the place, but I think it's much more stringent now and coming across as governed offline payments. I was just in the Philippines at a conference. There was one guy who sat next to me, and he was also presenting a few times in a few panels. He works in a U.K.-based company called [indiscernible]. He will release a sort of a sub-stack blog post. And he said, I go to many conferences. I seldom learn anything new. Crunchfish governed offline payments, this is really cool and it's really new. And he describes it in his sort of -- he has a banking or payments background. And I told him, this was the best third-party explanation I've ever seen. And that's going to come tomorrow or tonight, I think. And it's -- but that's -- now I think they're getting it, not just system operators, but also payments professionals. Remember, we didn't come from payments. So the way we have described us in many years has been, yes, confusing. I think we always had a gem in what we did, but we had sort of failed to understand. We failed in 2020, up to 2025. We failed in understanding that we have to deliver it both to the system and to the service providers, and we failed in the sense of position it correctly. I think governed offline payments, as we described now as critical infrastructure enabler, is the right way to go. So I'm very happy with that change that came now in Q4.

And also in Q4, you -- part of this work in explaining what you really do, you published a white paper where you compare immediate versus deferred offline modes and offline payments.

Because these are the other 2. That's the -- either you are immediate, you move money to device or you're deferred, that's the card way of doing it. You sign out an IOU or a digital check and you settle. But both have problems in its own right.

So if you could just briefly elaborate on those 2 models, and then what does Crunchfish do in this context?

Yes. I think we do really a comparison on our website in the -- if you go to what we sold on our website, this is where we really describe it more, but I can do it briefly that in an immediate model, it works like -- we can take a physical analogy. It is really like a banknote, but you do it as a digital banknote. You go to an ATM, you take out money. That model also -- you take out money from the banking system. The money is on your device. It's not in the bank anymore. It's there. And if you transfer it to me, you transfer money to me, and there is no settlement because it's called immediate model because immediately when you pay me, I have it, no settlement. That's that model. But the potential risk with that is that -- its high systemic risk is that if anyone cracks the security of the device, then you have sort of -- in a way, you can counterfeit money. And that's dangerous. That's that model. And it doesn't scale very well because both needs to have hardware on both sides, and it's linked to the underlying payment system as well. So it's not very interoperable. Then you have the deferred model, and that's what actually the Sveriges Riksbank -- I got a lot of people who said, "Oh, look, Sveriges Riksbank are talking about we're going to have offline payments." Are Crunchfish part of that? No, we're not actually because they are just using offline as an exception that if there is the -- this is in critical stores, petrol stations, grocery stores, pharmacies. If they are offline, if you have a physical card, you can pay up to SEK 2,000, but no one knows whether you have SEK 2,000 in the back end. No one knows that. So there's a credit risk that accumulates with the entire population here who have these cards. What we do is, yes, we have like the deferred model that we -- deferred means that in a subsequent step, we move the money online. That's how the card models do as well. No money has moved from you with your physical card to me. You have just signed out a digital check to me. That's all. And then we move the money. But it's not a bounded risk there because it just accumulates with -- there's a credit risk all the time. We have a bounded risk in the sense that you can only pay what you previously have been authorized to pay. So we could keep track of that as well. So we -- and there are so many, I think, advantages here. Risk is bounded. It's a scalable system because we can -- we don't need to have hardware on both sides. It's interoperable between even payment systems. And then this last thing, it's not just that -- as the money stays in the banking system, that's a huge opportunity for banks because if you take it out, it's off their balance sheet, means that they can do less lending. This is what they make money out. But in our system, the money stays. It's just that you, Martin, if you're going to spend offline, they have taken it from you and they have put a sort of hold on that money, but it's still in their balance sheet. And they don't have to pay you interest. So our governed model uniquely creates actually a business opportunity for the banks because not only that they -- it's safer and everything else, but it's actually sort of an economic incentive to do it. So now we're looking at offline payments in this way, do resilience because now your online system will sort of work all the time, that's a good thing. But not only that because some banks will say, well, we have online. It works 99% of the time. Why should we bother with this offline? And how much does it cost? Now the argument will be to them, well, you can make money out of this because the money that people reserve is a noninterest-bearing funding for your balance sheet. Fantastic.

So these 2 modes, if you say, the Reserve Bank of India, RBI, they changed from the immediate model to the deferred or they are in a change.

They didn't change to the deferred because they don't want the deferred. Deferred is risky. Immediate is -- why they change from -- they had the immediate. They even had -- they had the immediate model where they actually transferred money locally on device. But they have a huge system called UPI in India that is everywhere. And they want interoperability between the UPI system and the Digital Rupee system. If they -- the Digital Rupee system sort of sends money, that has no interoperability with UPI. So domestically, they want to create interoperability. So for that reason alone, it's actually good. And then the other reason is that they don't have to then have the focus -- the big risk on the devices. So yes, we are working with them now to have not deferred because that would create huge credit risk for -- if you think of -- a lot of Indians are -- the credit scoring is not such that the banks want to take high risk on them. So they don't want to give all Indians SEK 2,000 to spend. No. They need a governed offline model. We have that.

So that's where you come in.

Oh, yes, big time.

And other leading central banks, are they thinking the same?

Well, look at Bank of England. I must applaud Bank of England because I think they put out a paper, if you just google on Bank of England and offline payments, they had a design note in October in Q4 that really just talks about the 2 models: immediate and deferred. And they're saying that they're not going to go ahead with the immediate model, the digital banknote model because they think it is risky and a little immature. However, what they want to do is to have a deferred model. But what we have -- what they have, I think, liked is that we do like a deferred model where we let the money move online, but we also locally constrain how much you can spend. So we -- it is like a deferred model, but it adds that local control as well. And that's why we are, as the only offline model, chosen to be part now of the sandbox of the digital pound, which is -- I don't think that will give us any revenue in the short term because -- but I think it's a great credibility that Bank of England has selected us to be part. And I think it is partly due to that we were much better to explain. We have a governed offline model and it merits.

So what about the ECB?

Well, ECB is on track. They did a choice a few years back and they wrote a big spec on really trying to have an immediate model. And the immediate model has merits in the sense that it's great that you can transfer for me and then it's done. And it gives that immediacy and it's the most cash-like. And that's what they have described, and that's what they're going for. But they have opened up for alternative as well. And we are part of it. We have worked with ECB as a pioneer to show how offline could work in another way. And I had a meeting last week or the week before, actually before I went to the Philippines, with the product managers and the partnering managers of ECB about that they see merits in our approach. So -- and they're going to open up actually a sort of a -- because the digital euro will be a whole platform, they can -- just like on the card rail, there are multiple ways of doing offline payments. This can happen here as well. So I think they're not at all closing the doors to us. So the ECB -- it's certainly not dead for us. We are continuing talking and we've already shown what we've done on the -- in the sandbox.

So you are in all kinds of discussions and plans. But the most advanced is NPCI in India, right?

In terms of where we have come the furthest. Yes, absolutely.

Could you give us an update on that project?

Yes. Well -- yes, what can I say? We've defined how it should be done. We have sent them our SDKs, which is sort of -- that should be integrated both on the system side, but also we have also our offline wallet that goes on the service provider side. And the product is that we are essentially wanting to integrate the ability to receive offline payments on the system. That's with our terminal. Everybody should be able to receive. That is what the system puts in. And then we have 2 participating banks. It is our good old IDFC that we have -- they are part of it. And the other bank is the most -- it's one of the big banks, one of the 4 big banks, the most innovative. They're known to be the most innovative in India. They are part of it as well. So now is the time for them to start integrating it here. We've also contractually agreed -- because we were a little bit saying we're so happy to work with you, you can sort of have this for free. But we've actually been paid, but we've also contractually bounded that what we have delivered for you doesn't leak into commercial deployment. So they have paid us for doing technical test, which is good. And -- but most importantly, it's not what they pay because it's not huge money, but still it's reasonable. But we have contractually said that this is only for testing. It doesn't give you any rights to use what we have now developed for any commercial -- that needs a commercial discussion.

And how would you assess the probability of a commercial deal once the pilot is completed?

I think it's good. I think it's good. I think why would they otherwise spend sort of working with us every day. They could have said no then, stopped working with Crunchfish, but that continues. But it's complex in the sense because they are a big organization, but we have a scheduled meeting every day. Sometimes the daily meeting gets canceled, but it's intense.

So when could we expect the project to be finished?

I think we're looking -- there's actually a meeting -- what is it? Today is Thursday. Tomorrow, it's the meeting with actually all the participating banks that we participate in, which is inviting in a way that layer as well. And so we're getting to close to this testing and initial sort of phase and then it starts negotiation. But the good thing here is that, as I described before, we have a business model where we enable the banking community, and I described that in the year-end report. When we now do a deal with a system, NPCI, who are the banking association, this is the national payment corporation that owns all the big banks. We can say that to have all our technology and use it for free for anyone, then we can do a deal at that level with them. That's the first. But then we open up for us then, after that, selling to all the service providers, which is a subsequent here. But we will enable -- we have an opportunity to do a deal with NPCI that is using this fact that the banking community that NPCI serves is actually having a business opportunity here, and we can have revenue sharing with that business community. That's sort of one level. And then it is the service level. The good thing here with the deal on the service level is that it is our technology that enables India to pay offline. That means that because NPCI wants to have a vendor-neutral who -- anyone, not just Crunchfish, should be able to service the service providers. But it means that we want to get -- this is what we call -- I'm using the word FRAND licensing. It stands for fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. So other vendors than Crunchfish can actually go and sell offline wallets. But it's our underlying system. So this moneymaking out of the system should benefit Crunchfish, regardless who delivers the actual wallet. So we -- on the system level, we will benefit from that level, regardless of who delivers the wallet and then add to that whatever wallet deployments we can do.

You mean that they use your offline payment functionality.

They use overall. The whole system uses, and that gives us one sort of negotiation point with the system, which goes early. But then after that, there is individual service providers, banks or -- that we can individually compete with others. That's the community we're putting together. But that is -- that has clarified during Q4. And we're right, the whole section called system-wide and service provider licensing has all this and as well as explaining why the banking community actually -- this is a business opportunity for them.

Another thing that you bring up in the report is closed-loop wallets. And could you just give us a little description of what is that? And how does this -- is a faster way to market for you?

Yes. No, absolutely. I think to make a -- as a lot of people here are -- listening are Swedish, we have the Swish system here in Sweden. It's the same app everywhere, but it is actually in 2 levels. There is Getswish, the company owned by banks, they deliver the system. And then it's the individual banks that issues actually the Swish app to you. So there is sort of that -- there is a system, Getswish delivers that. They have the acceptance of Swish payments. And the actual payment capability is delivered by banks, but using the same app, all right? In a closed-loop system, you can almost look at, as a whole, Swish is like a closed loop, but they have this hierarchy. It's a system and service providers. A closed-loop system is -- they just are the one.

They control the whole...

Yes, exactly. They are the service provider, and they're also the system operator. So they operate the system just like Swish does, and they are also the service provider. And in many Asian countries, because they didn't have -- we were very early actually with -- we started in 2012 here in Sweden with national payment system Swish. This was the launch in December 2012. But in many countries, that came later. But there were companies that invested in that. We -- let's take the market and offer digital payments with instant. And that became like closed-loop wallets. And they are present in many countries in Asia. I was just in the Philippines, and I met with GCash, 80 million users, and they dominate. Everybody is using GCash because it's the most user-friendly and that's -- they have a dominant position. But that exists. There is DANA in Indonesia, 160 million, EasyPaisa in Pakistan, and there was Paytm, great player in India that was doing a closed-loop wallet as well. So it exists in many countries. And actually, an interesting thing is that Alipay, who is also a closed-loop wallet, one of the 2 in China, they have strategically invested through their investment arm and ventures in always the leading wallet. So they are like a family of closed-loop wallets in Southeast Asia. And we got to GCash and we got to Philippines last week. And Philippines is a country where they have connectivity problems. It is realized by the Central Bank. It's realized by everybody, and they need to focus on this. And we have already done a commercial offer to GCash, which -- and the good thing here is that we don't have to first work on the system level and then we sell to the service provider. But in the GCash opportunity, it's one decision-maker, it's one integration, so much faster and much faster rollout as well, sort of.

So this GCash could also be -- I mean your solution can be applied in the payment rail as well from GCash?

GCash has their own -- they have a closed-loop system there, which is just like if you think of how Swish works in Sweden, that's sort of -- and GCash is the same. But they have a Swish system as well where the banks participate, just like in Sweden, called InstaPay. And GCash is a big node in that as well. But if we get GCash, then they will start and that will be a great enabler to -- because that's -- a lot of people on InstaPay are using GCash, but that will drive adoption from others as well, and also interest, I think, InstaPay, because -- and as I said, we had an off-site meeting with the Central Bank. We met with the most leading innovative bank in -- just like we have in India, we met with them, and they are keen to do a POC with us as well. And it was a fantastic week in the Philippines.

Jumping to something else. You wrote about CMA small systems in the report. Who are they?

It's a Swedish company actually. And they are a -- they develop a sort of payment capability online. They have a -- they can do, say, a payment switch as a component. And they are doing that in, I don't know, 10, 15 countries, and they are our partners. And we talked about Pakistan. They are the switch provider there, delivering the underlying sort of payment system of not just a switch, but also the payment system of Pakistan. And they are our partners into now when they want to go offline. So we are part of -- in a way, similar to InstaPay in Philippines, we are part of that, and that will be announced very soon who's going to be the winner. And we -- they've said mid-February, which is sort of now, which is kind of cool. And that's a huge country, 250 million people in Pakistan.

So sliding over to the business model, how would such a deal be structured with a technology provider such as Siemens?

Well, they would -- a technology provider will be that -- now when we have clarified our business model, how it works with the system operator and how it works with a service provider, they are, in a way, just representing us and they are -- we are going in together. They typically sell their system and they make money out of that. And we make their system better, and we come along side-by-side offering our system unless the regulator or the customer, the banking system or whatever it is, says, we want one counterparty. And then we will be component provider to the -- who owns the contract. So it will either go by them. But we have our model quite clear how we want to charge.

I see. You outlined the business model quite extensively in the report.

Yes, and we talked about it quite a lot.

But could you just summarize some of the key points?

Key points is that if we look at what we worked a long time with India, service -- system level, we have a way by what we call a system operator would like that it's vendor-neutral. It's -- they don't want to lock themselves in with us. So we can offer a licensing model, which is -- it's -- we are, in a way, part of sharing what the banking community gets out of this because they have a -- we -- it's our model that delivers that, and it's just fair that we can get that money. And that could be certainly scalable. The more people use it, the more people we serve and the more we make there, but it can also be like an upfront payment. But there is a component because the system can make money out of this. We have a way to actually monetize that. Then there is this level on the service provider level. These are the ones serving end users: the banks and the application providers. And there, we have the same model.

And here's the governed deferred model that you provide.

Well, the governed is for the system. It's a governed model for the whole system.

Not only for the banks.

Well, the banks is just a participant. They deliver the offline wallet in a governed system. So there is a governed system. Overall, it's governed. So you control the risk for the whole system. But then the service provider, the banks who deliver end users a wallet in their hand, they pay for -- it's a subscription, Software-as-a-Service, that they have that, just like we did for IDFC. But there is a model where there is the IDFC pricing model applies to the banks, just like IDFC, but then there is a system charge as well. And then if we have a closed-loop wallet, we can collapse everything, one negotiation, but both components still applies.

Okay. So 3 legs, if you...

Well, 2 legs. It is on the system level and it's on the service level. These are the 2 legs. But if you're a closed-loop player, then you act in both capacities. You are both a system and a service provider. So -- but we can talk to them about that there is 2 components now. If we talk about the GCash offer that we've done, the commercial offer of them, is that you make money out of this. This is not a cost to you, you make money. We want to share that moneymaking. And then you want to deploy it as well, and we want to -- 80 million users you have, we wanted to be part of that as well.

And then we have the technology providers as well.

Well, the technology providers are -- yes, they are a role that -- their role is to service -- either they sell to systems or service providers. And we could equip them with our technology so they can go out and sell to all of them.

Just to remind everyone who's watching, please send in questions, and we will address them. But let's do some financial questions. Last year, you secured financing with a very good share issue. And in that package, there were options or warrants that will be exercised in March. Is that right?

Yes. What we did was to get -- 4 million shares was a directed issue to 3 players, but it was a unit emission. So they got 4 million shares. That was what they paid, I think, [indiscernible], SEK 14 million to the company. But then there was also then -- tied to that was that they had an equal amount of warrants and they should exercise now between 3 and 4. Right now, we're actually out of the money because we are at 2.50. So what we did -- because there is a floor, it will never go below 3, never above 4. But we also secured a loan offer which is from one of the players on SEK 10 million that we, in Q2, could draw on if we want to. So we have secured financing that it would either come from the warrants if we get it sort of to -- yes, we have to increase the stock price right now, otherwise -- because we will measure it between 5th of March to 18th of March, and that will determine in a way the price for these warrants. And -- but then we have in Q2, the chance to exercise a potential loan if we want to. And we can do that even if we exercise the -- it's decoupled. So we can do -- yes, we don't have to do anything. It's our option.

I see. And looking at the figures, compared to '24, the sales figure seems a bit low.

For Digital Cash, we're still just charging in a way for pilots. We're not charging for the commercial deployment. So the money is low for Digital Cash. And last year, we had -- we did a closing deal with OPPO for, I think, SEK 1.5 million, and that explains, in a way, the drop. So we're still at just selling pilots right now. But this is what could change now, given all the endorsement of our governed offline model that stop selling pilots actually charge for the system instead, which is a different matter. And that's what we're trying to move into.

I'm running out of questions soon. So if you have one -- any questions, please? Send them in. We'll try and address them. Well, turning to your focus for 2026. Execution and revenue generating is stated in the report. What can we expect from Crunchfish, near term, for the whole year?

Well, I think revenue -- yes, that's -- as everybody understand, that's the best way to get financing is to get it from your customers. So getting revenue. And we have to move from just doing pilots and actually offer system deployments. But we have that opportunity now in -- not just in India. As I said, we don't have to wait until the banks go on. We have started negotiation with NPCI that we told them that there has to be a licensing here on that level. But we have also many others. I just told you about possibly a fast-track system operator as, as I said, GCash is one opportunity. But it exists in many others as well. I think we have sort of like, yes, a handful where we actually can go in and sell systems. I really like the closed-loop opportunity because we're not just first selling to a system and then go for the service provider. Here, the closed-loop wallets are fast track because they are one company, one company to integrate with and it's sort of that.

And those organizations are huge. I mean they have...

Well, yes, they're extremely profitable. It's been a good business to do these things. So yes -- no, I think -- and they -- in countries where the connectivity is sort of spotty, like it is in the Philippines. But it's many countries, I would say, around India, I think we are in contact now. We've actually added -- we said we left 2 people or the team go around Gesture, which was sad. These were our colleagues. But we've added 2 people. We haven't really announced it, but they work as consultants to us. It's Robert in Hong Kong. And it's [indiscernible] in Thailand. And they're doing a great job being around and getting these national payment systems sort of fired up on that. There is a way to get payment availability with a governed offline model. So you will expect more of that. And particularly, as I said, closed-loop wallets is a fast-track opportunity for revenues for us. But the fact that we can actually sell as well, we have to be able to sell on the system level with the new business model clarification that is described in the report, is also providing opportunities to actually pull revenue earlier. But I sort of think this way. If someone would say that we could significantly improve Sweden's payment system, and we have the backing of the Central Bank, and we are talking directly to sort of the payment system of Sweden, and we have the banks all on board, wouldn't that be a great thing? And we have the model, which is patented and everything. Now sort of -- what I'm really excited about is that, that's what we've achieved in the Philippines. The Philippines is 10x larger than Sweden. They have 120 million, not just 11 million. And there, we have -- just after a week here, it's really exciting that -- met with the Central Bank, they really liked it, met with the Innovative Bank. They want to do a POC with us, met with sort of GCash. They said, give us a quote for the system, not just to try it because they understand it works. But that is an opportunity. And that's just one country. Then you have, yes, a few others in the world. And the big gorilla, 10x bigger than Philippines is India, where we are still very much there. But it's just that it's -- yes, so happy that we got on the inside that with this, we understood system and service, and that allowed us into it. But now -- yes, but it's still there. We're working on it. So I'm excited that we have a governed offline model, which is, yes, I think the way to do offline payments, even if other approach exist, but who wouldn't like to have bounded risk and a business opportunity with it if you are a system operator. We uniquely deliver both these things. So that's why I'm proud and optimistic about -- and I'm proud that we -- in Q4, with the website and also the report that we put out, are able to articulate it really well, and it resonates with the ecosystem.

Great. Great to hear. I ran out of questions. But Obviously, things are brewing at Crunchfish.

Yes, I know it's a busy time. Look, we have 15 people, and we're sitting with a stellar technology, which not just solves a problem for the world, but it actually brings the decision-maker of money, which is not a bad thing that it's not -- if you normally get an improvement, you expect to pay for that improvement. I can actually offer it as a -- we can offer it as a business opportunity, which is even better.

Yes. Sounds great. And gives us all the reasons to follow the news flow of Crunchfish in the near term and maybe medium term as well. So thanks a lot, Joachim, for coming and explaining and talking about the report. And also everyone who is watching, thanks for watching.

Can I add one thing?

Yes, of course.

We're using 2 analyst firms. Very happy with Vastra Hamnen, and they do these quarterly reports. But we -- because we have such a massive report, it's a big piece, and it's not easy to get our Q4 report in half past 8, and we stand here at 9. No one has been able to read or can ask question about such a piece. So we do offer an opportunity tomorrow at 12 noon with our -- in Swedish that you could join as well, which is -- it will be about similar topics that we talked about today, Martin. You're always first. You are the first journalist to report. But this gives an opportunity. So -- and that was announced as well with our -- the invitation is in our press release for that. So that gives an opportunity to ask questions tomorrow. I welcome all to join that as well. And -- but I want to thank you, Martin, for always being the first one on the line to ask a question about a big report. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Joachim. And all who's watching, go home and digest the report and sign up for the webcast tomorrow as well. That's all for now. Thank you.

Thank you.