Ion Video Ltd ($IOV)

Well, good morning, everyone. We may -- I think we start this morning's session. So welcome to Ion Video's shareholder Q&A. My name is Grant Titmus. With me is Joe, the CFO -- Joe Rinarelli, who's the CFO for ION. Also with us to answer your questions today is Anthony Baker, ION's CEO; and the Head of Innovation, Finbar O’Hanlon. As you're aware, this event has been called to provide you guys, the shareholders with the opportunity to engage directly with management off the back of quite a few announcements, not only this month, but in previous months. The format of today was that ION Video Chairman, Brent Jones, was going to join us just to say a few words, but he's been in hospital for minor surgery. So he won't be able to join us this morning. We did ask for you guys to submit your questions for today's session, and we've received quite a lot. So thank you very much for that. There are some double ups. So we've taken the liberty of condensing those questions to make it more relevant for you guys. Obviously, you can ask questions at any time through the chat section, although you may want to wait the end simply some of the questions that have already been asked may be given -- the answers may be given beforehand. [indiscernible] several buckets. So there's some financial questions. There's also quite a few questions around Meta and Alphabet and the conversations that were there and also around patents and a few other things. If you are unable to -- if we are unable to get to all the questions in this session, they will be answered after the event through a more formal written update and shared with those attending. The information will also be made available to all shareholders, including those that haven't been able to join today. And additionally, the webinar will be posted live on the ION website. So there's plenty of opportunities for everybody to get that.

So that being said, let's jump straight into the questions, and we're going to start with the financials. So that's more of Anthony's.

Fantastic.

[indiscernible] So the first question there for you, Anthony, is upon reviewing the 4C, where did the $500,000 of receivables come from?

Firstly, good morning, everyone. In terms of answering that question, look, I'm not going to be drawing to specifics. They will actually come out in the annual report when we actually publish that. All I can give shareholders at this stage is the reassurance is that all of that money will be received. The vast majority has been received, but all of it will be received within the next couple of weeks. So that gives us the security that, that will no longer be an issue.

Okay. Based on your announced cash inflows of around $1.1 million, plus the $200,000 in the bank, this will only last until December this year. How is ION going to last until June quarter 2027? And if so, where will this extra cash be coming from?

Okay. In the 4C, we only actually detailed what I would say is certainty. We've got some historic R&D claims, both in the U.K. and in Aus, which have been submitted. They're actually with the relevant revenue offices at the present moment and being processed. So from our perspective, there's a degree of certainty around those. That's what we put into the 4C. But obviously, once we get to June '26, that year will be finalized, and we'll be able to submit another R&D claim both for approximately 7 months of U.K. and a full year worth of Australian R&D. So when I met, we would expect that revenue to come in around October, November, and that will last us at least until April, and that's why I've been quite broad, and as [indiscernible] said, April to June because I've tried to be as conservative as I can in those estimates rather than optimistic.

The next question here is you will clearly need to do a raise within the next quarter. Why not do it now, but having said that, the previous answer probably answered that.

Yes. I can categorically say, I know there are some shareholders saying that we do need to do a raise. There will be no raise. Fundamentally, the business is cash funded. Brent and I injected quite a lot of cash when we took over the business, so a few key investors. And with the rationalization of the cost base, which we've engaged in, and we were ahead of numbers as we identified in the 4C, we continue to beat those numbers, in my opinion, there will be no cash raise in the imminent future that I can be 100% sure of.

The next question relates to just staff numbers. I don't know if you want to talk about how many you currently have, but this question is, are you expanding the team?

Yes, we are. There's obviously been a lot of rationalization within the business and focusing on what I would consider key men. We've successfully recruited a number of personnel who, in my opinion, are worth significantly more than what they paid. We've recruited exceptionally well, thanks to Finbar. But yes, we are expanding. We've just recruited on a project basis, one of the former heads of AI at Capgemini. He's now working for us building the next evolution of our technology, which we're going to launch. So that's internal, but the main recruitment what we're doing at the present moment is an Advisory Board. We fully acknowledge that our technology is quite revolutionary and a lot of people don't necessarily understand that technology. So what we've gone out is we're going to recruit what I can only describe as an Advisory Board of Titans, people who have been there done that and got the T-shirts. People who can effectively walk us into any organization because they're reputable, they're heavy weight in the industry. I'll let Fin expand more upon that question, but let's just say those conversations are very far advanced at the present moment. And I would hope to announce that to the market within the coming weeks once everything is finalized. But the 5 members have been identified, and we're currently going through that. And there will be before any shareholder ask, everyone is going to be incentivized rather than the cash payment. So it will not affect the cash flow of the business. Maybe do you want to expand on that and what they bring to the business?

Yes. So these people are, as you say, they're tight. So we've got people that have built major U.S. networks, people who have built major streaming platforms. And when I say major streaming platforms, people who has CTO with over 200 staff underneath them for one of the major studios around the world. We've got people that worked at one of the biggest companies in the world under one of the biggest leaders. It's hard for me to say, I wish I could just say all the people, but they are an incredible group of people. People that I've had a long-standing relationship with. People who really understand the vision and the actual impact of this technology applies. And they're just super excited to be on board and to be part of this journey with us. So I know all this stuff will come out as soon as it's formalized, and we're very close to doing that. But I'll be super. You know what I'm like, I'll be one of the first guys out there telling everyone about it as soon as it happens.

So an Advisory Board, why did you decide to go down that path?

So the Advisory Board, a key part of the Advisory Board, there's a number of different levers that they can help. They can help accelerate. So a, they bring credibility. There's no doubt about that. Secondly, their networks are amazing. So they can get us into networks that we just can't. They've got long-standing relationships and trust with people at highest levels of some of these other organizations. Plus also, they can validate our strategy. We take a lot of insights from the market. A big part of my job is actually understanding and trying to keep in tune with the market. And that's really hard, obviously, with what's going on with AI. But having a broad set of skills around everything from media entertainment, security and defense, streaming, a lot of different fragments actually helps us when we actually talk about with the Advisory Board. Our strategy is to help validate and harden that strategy, get extra insights. And it just gives us -- just make sure we're derisking the next decisions because we're basing that on more than informed decisions from evidence that's coming from the market, but also from industry expertise that are close to and incentivized in getting the outcome for the business.

Yes. Just building on what Fin said just very quickly. When we came out with our half year report, we put the 4 pillars out to the market of what we're looking to build the business on, basically enhance the IP, evolve the technology, market validation and commercialization. This Advisory Board helps us with #3. It provides us with the validation because as I say, they've been there, done that and they understand the tech and believe it has a place within this market, but also they help us with the commercialization because they're going to walk us into quite a number of institutions.

Yes. So we had a question come through. How is it different to the Advisory Board that the company previously had?

So the Advisory Board, I can only talk in my time. I don't know much. Obviously, I left a long, long time ago, so I can only talk about the Advisory Board that was set up. The business in its original incarnation when the days when I invented the technology back then, it was solving a completely different problem in the market. So the Advisory Board that we put together was around having the insights and the skills and expertise around solving that problem, which was primarily a transcoding and a telco industry problem. So the Advisory Board in its core capacity is about bringing intelligence networks, skills and capability to the table. And so in that respect, it's very similar. But in its current incarnation, we're solving a different problem. So we're building the skills around actually not only understanding where the market is, but how enterprises actually are looking to solve that. Essentially, there's a new stack. There's a race going on right now. You may or may not be aware of it. But if you've been tracking some of the announcements and some of the things that I've been talking about, there is a fundamental shift going on in the whole video ecosystem, not just AI, but video itself is changing. And what we're seeing is we're witnessing a complete shift. We need the skills, expertise and networks to be able to sort of talk to that and to do that through an informed lens. And so the Advisory Board from a core perspective gives us that capability uplift.

I think just building on that the key thing to actually say is this Advisory Board is industry experts who are relevant to our space. I'm not disrespecting the previous Advisory Board. I know one of them was one of our largest shareholders. However, this Advisory Board is industry titans within the video space specifically and within the right markets, they're all located in the U.S. And let's be open, that's where our market is.

I think that's a perfect segue to start talking about Meta and Alphabet. So -- and there are quite a few questions about that, as you can imagine. So the first question was you've mentioned you have had these initial talks with Alphabet and Meta. Where exactly are those talks taking place? I assume you're talking about physical location.

Yes, sure. I'll answer that. A lot of credit goes to Finbar, and Finbar is a genius. I'm not going to take that away. But people underestimate other people within the team. We've got a gentleman called AJ, AJ Palmer, who has scaled and built and sold multiple business for hundreds of millions of dollars. It's actually he who's leading the actual conversations with Meta and with Google. They're all occurring in Europe at the present moment. Unbeknown to me, Meta's Media division is actually run out of Europe in London. So all of those conversations are taking place in London at the present moment, and I can confirm further meetings are in the diary with each organization.

So you may well have answered the next question, which was how do you expect to be able to access the right people within these organizations?

Look, as I said, Fin has amazing connections within the industry and so does AJ. Brent and I have a couple, which we can add to that, but we know we're talking to the right people. And let me just give you an example. So everyone says how are we talking to the right people in Meta. We're talking to the Head of Digital Media. His boss is Zuckerberg. He reports directly to Zuckerberg. We received a picture of this guy who we're meeting with his arm around Zuckerberg at the recent New York conference. So we know we're close. There's no point of speaking to middle management. We are speaking to -- they have to be a senior executive. Otherwise, it's not worth the time.

So outside of those 2, the next question is about the Magnificent 7, any other discussions with those guys?

Look, yes, I'll say what I can. We are in talks with 4 members of the Magnificent 7. However, I can't name the other 2. I wasn't -- we weren't given expressed permission, but we'll let shareholders have a guess.

Okay. Are there any meetings specifically set up? That's the next question.

Yes. Literally, with -- I think within the clarification to the ASX, we turned around and said there's about 15 global companies we're in talks with. We've got meetings with every single one set up either in Europe or in the U.S.

So often with these talks, contracts can take a long time. And the next question is, do you see these -- signing these new clients? Is it in the short term or the long term?

Look, yes, they tend to take a long time if you're not dealing with the right people. But equally, these companies can move quickly if they want to. I'm not going to put a time line on how long these talks are going to take because that would be foolish. All I can say is when we presented, I'm pleased to say, and I know Fin will back me up here, is that not one person we've spoken to who are -- who understand the tech have turned around and said there's no place for this. Everyone has turned around. I take Meta. The guy from Meta literally stopped the meeting halfway through and got all of his directors who report to him literally into the meeting, there was about 12 people in the meeting listening to the presentation because he thought the technology was revolutionary. So it's always been well received. And I know Fin and his trip in the U.S. He was phoning me left, right and center, saying the meetings have gone exceptionally well. But that said, yes, we're not naive. We are speaking to some smaller players. Fin and I presented to some smaller players recently who have suggested they want to move forward. But again, until that [indiscernible] team materializes into contract, we can't say too much.

Perhaps Fin one for you is what is the use case for value driving the conversations, particularly with Meta and Alphabet?

Yes. So when you have -- well, the primary -- there's a number of different things, but the primary one is personalization at scale. And so I think I talked about it in my -- when we launched the product launch video, we talked about our problem statement, which I'm pretty sure everyone on this call understands and nearly everyone that I talk to does that it's getting harder and harder to find content that's relevant to us. And I mentioned some stats 30% of people's time is wasted trying to find content that's relevant to them. That's a big problem for platforms who drive revenue up through relevance because their ad revenue, their traffic, all of that sort of stuff is built on having people engaged on their platforms. And so now there's billions of pieces of content and the way that the world has been trying to drive that relevance is by these algorithms, making video shorter and shorter and shorter like TikTok and Instagram. And so it's pretty much a race of the algorithms at the moment. And so as we're now moving into a new space where agents are now coming up, the concept of an audience is changing. And so -- and the big platforms know that. So they know that in the old world, a content producer, they would just have to provide a platform and someone would produce a piece of content, upload it on the platform. And as long as that drives revenue, they just give a share of that revenue to the end user, hence, YouTube. But that's changing. And so they know now they build the big foundation models. The people that are building these systems are now understanding the power of AI to be able to assemble content for every individual. And that's a one-to-one relationship. It's no longer one content producer produces, one piece of content for an audience. It's now I want content relevant to me. I want my non-scripted content. I want my education, I want my news feeds. I want my cooking, whatever that is, my in-home devices, my Amazon echos, my Fire TV. All of this sort of stuff is this is the new frontier. And the large companies that are selling engagement and driving value through engagement realize that personalization at scale through rendered content is hitting a wall. And they need a system whereby content can now be intelligently shaped without the cost of rendered content because it's just not -- it's not a feasible business model to be managing billions of hours of pieces of content and then refactoring that for every person on the planet. They're starting to recognize that the level of intelligence that's being -- AI models are spending tons of money just trying to learn off video libraries. And so they realize that, that intelligence needs to go somewhere. It needs to be able to build with it. And that's what they're excited about. The ability to be able to shape content dynamically like text is.

So that sounds like it's a big change for content for people watching themselves.

It's a big chunk of people watching because now content is relevant to them on a one-to-one basis. Their agent represents them, can represent them or it can represent from a platform, but it changes what content production means. These content creators can now sell content at the LEGO block level. They can put rights management around each different frame of content. They can have one piece of content and allow our smart contract to commercialize that. So this is a whole new world, which is getting them very excited that this not only is it changing in the shape of what video looks like, but how the whole unit economics of video works from content production, content management in terms of the reduction of cost through virtual content, but also the end user experience.

Most of the traction seems to be coming out of the U.S. and overseas. The next question is, is there a market for ION in Australia? Or is there real opportunity really internationally?

Do you want me to answer that? Yes. I think it's pretty obvious once -- for us, there's -- if we start to look at where the value statement is for these large hyperscalers and the large foundation models, there's a lot of money, there's an arms race going on about who's got the best foundation model. You can now see Google just invested about $40 billion into Anthropic, Anthropic. Everyone is on this race of trying to find their unique ability to deliver to end customers. So there are no foundation models in Australia of that scale. Secondarily, the big video platforms for us to be able to operationalize and remove a lot of this cost in managing the 720,000 hours of YouTube every day, for example, the unit economics of scale are with the big platforms. And they're the ones that our little technology as a little technology enabler enables multiple levels of value, not just on delivering an end user experience, not just on ad platforms, but on reduction in scale. So yes, I would all of our -- the people that actually -- that makes the most sense in driving the value for this business is those that actually have multiple touch points in where video virtualization can affect everything from advertising, reduction of content production and new experiences for any innovation for end users.

So the next question is quite technical. It's sort of 3 questions in one, if you like. So how does the new tokenized patent specifically change the unit economics for a creator? Does it enable automated micro payments every time an AI agent accesses a virtual video file? And is this the specific use case being discussed with the other social media platforms?

Yes. So there's a number of things in here. To try and frame this up, so it actually rather me than just answering stuff, let me just try and get some context here. If you look back at the last 15 to 20 announcements that Jensen Huang from NVIDIA has talked about, he's talked about this future whereby every pixel will be generated by AI, right? He's already well ahead of the game. He's talking about this new future of content creation and content generation. When -- what our tokenization patents and what the concept does is that if the world is moving towards agentic content, like what Jensen is saying, like some of the conversations that we're having where people are now starting to see this, it comes down to the current methodology is get all this intelligence in video and then make another video. Problem is when you make another video, how do you know you've got the rights to make that video because it was trained on someone else's content. If you're putting together someone else's content in a new package, how are you managing the rights of that? This is where our tokenization patent comes in. The fact that we have virtual video is a layer between AI and all the building blocks of the trillions of hours of content that already exist. So we're an assembly, we're a little assembly layer. The new patent sits on top of that, and it's basically a content authorization layer, which has the right technical word to resolve references. So basically, what this does is it allows every content owner to be in control of every block that they create. And it means that our new tokenization patent means -- allows for those that want to enforce the rights, those that want to put the control mechanisms in place. For example, the previous business I worked out with one of the biggest payment rails in the world, if it's an institution like that that's managing payments or if it's a major platform, they can define whatever rules they want. But our patent is the right to resolve references, which are built on Virtual Video. So it becomes a stack that allows those that want to control the new domain to be able to have the provision to do so and those content creators to be able to have control of their destiny. Once it's rendered, once the file is given away, you've lost control. You're now trying to put DRM on it. But with Virtual Video, not only does it unlock the world, make it all lightweight. Now with our new tokenization method, it means that traditional methodologies around rights management, user consent, transaction information can all be encrypted to biometrics and can be secured by whoever wants to control those rules. I don't know if that makes sense. So it might be a little bit technical but...

That's good enough.

Yes. Probably leads to the next question with Linius previously having strong patents and clearly, you couldn't monetize them effectively. How are you different?

I can explain that. Yes, look, the one thing when we came on board, Brent and I, we obviously wanted to evaluate what we inherited in terms of the technology platform. So we conducted quite an investigation, mainly driven through AJ in Europe because the tech team was based in London just to try and understand the solution that we are offering to the market. Obviously, in conjunction with Fin, we were already in talks with Fin prior to him coming back, and he was very kind to us. He said we can run things passing, et cetera, to discuss. The most surprising thing from our perspective is the current solution let's say, Linius was offering to the market didn't even virtualize video. Everything Fin just talked about in his last question talked about virtualizing video. I can confirm not one of the customers that Linius had actually signed up in the past use virtualization. They all had bespoke elements, an add-on here, an add-on here. Linius has turned away from its patents and effectively become like a bespoke software agency. Now I'm not blaming Gerard at all for that. Gerard was the Chairman and he had the people beneath him. Unfortunately, the people beneath him, not one of them was a technologist. Not one of them understood the core concepts. I'm not saying I am, but what you try and do is surround yourself with people who actually understand the technology. And we're fortunate in our organization, we've got 2 what I consider leaders. We've got the original inventor back, no one understands the technology industry better than him. But we've also got A.J. And between the 2 of them, they bounce off each other with ideas. And now we're getting this Advisory Board, which again further strengthens further complements the overall offering we've got. So we actually believe not arrogantly, but we believe that we've actually can reliably get the pulse of the market, understand what the market is and where our solution fits within that market space.

And I just want to add to that. Virtual Video when it came out was originally solved a different problem. I can't talk to the Linius years after the IPO. But -- the market has evolved. There's one thing having great technology. There's another thing having a market demand for that technology. And so the timing has to be right. The market has to be ready. And so what we're witnessing, I'm sure some of the shareholders have probably read some of the announcements, the one that came out last night as well, is every week now, there seems to be new announcements around AI doing stuff with video. This is a fertile ground now. We're now surfing the wave. We've got something that is the blocker that's the last mile between all this intelligence and all these new systems and being able to deliver on the promise of what that intelligence means for me as a viewer. And so I think that not only as the -- we've got the better people and we're now surround ourselves, we've now hit the market at a time where actually what we've got is valuable.

The timing is right now.

Yes. So talking of valuable, if the tech is validated by big tech in the way as described, what ballpark value would be placed on the tech in the company as a result?

Very difficult, obviously. Look, we can't control the share price. All we can do is continue to, one, restructure the company and just continue to build the company along the 4 foundations that we've actually put to the market. So one of the things Fin is mainly driving the commercialization with AJ, as you could imagine, because he's having those type of conversations at the present moment to open all the doors. My focus is more on the validation. So we've gone out there with our lawyers to validate the new patents. We've actually been approached by a global law firm who wants to do a valuation on our patents. I've allowed that, and we're awaiting the results of that. That's a completely independent study. So we're doing everything we can to so-call what I would say, build like a data suite to reinforce the validity of the patents and the market opportunity. In terms of the gulf between current share price and what the end value or what the perceived value of the company is. Look, all I can say in that regard is -- and I know he's not here today, but I can speak for him. Brent and I control roughly on a fully diluted basis, just under 40% of this business. Neither of us take a salary. We haven't taken a penny out of the business since we started. We don't intend to. Neither of us have sold a share and neither of us intend to. We believe the value of this company is exponentially higher than where it currently sits. And we're determined between the 2 of us by bringing on people like Finbar and AJ and all the other members of the team we've got, we're determined to give our best shot of extrapolating that value for the benefit of all shareholders.

Next question is around timing. Any thoughts on how long until the market begins to realize the value of what you're doing?

Look, as these conversations progress, we will keep the market updated. The fact that we are again, let's go back. We only launched this tech on February 9. Fin only rejoined the company in November.

It was end of November.

End of November. It was a massive rush. And when he joined, the tech team is based in the U.K. So not only we had to restructure the tech team and recruit the tech team over in Australia, but we then had to build the tech. Why? Because we wanted to get to the market quickly to demonstrate we are on a new path. I can confirm there will be another evolution of the tech, which we're going to announce in June. And that will be a significantly upgraded piece of tech, which all of our shareholders can actually play around with themselves. They'll be fully interactive, and it will really show the value of what we can offer. So we came to the market as quickly as we can. We're doing everything within our power to move things forward. But to get in the doors of, as I say, 15 global organizations at either Board level or senior exec level within the space of, what, 8, 9 weeks, we're doing okay so far. We're doing okay. Fin is back in America on Friday. He leaves from America again. AJ is back in Europe, I think, the week after next. So things are progressing as quickly as we can. Yes, that's what I can really say.

So the next one is about with having such a low market cap and a very smaller player in this space that's perhaps debatable. How does it place itself to extract the full value of the technology?

How do we place? Put ourselves?

How does ION place itself to extract the full value of the technology? And you may have answered that previously with what you're doing with the Advisory Boards.

Look, yes, look, we're doing everything we can. So we've got -- we're doing market education. We're doing validation of the patents. We're doing -- we're out there. We're significantly upgrading the technology. So I don't know of -- besides bringing on extra expertise who will help inform our strategy of whether we're missing any point. I think we're doing everything we can to extract the full value of these patents. But the full value depends on the customer. So it depends on how many problems. For a company, a massive hyperscaler. For a company like Alphabet, for example, the amount of different areas that this technology will impact from a value perspective is significantly different to if we went to the NHL in America. So it depends. So this is why I think it's really important that we're really focused on the types of customers we're going for. And that's why we mentioned the types of customers. We could be going and having conversations with lots of smaller customers, but they pay as much work and the actual impact and the value of the technology is only going to be a fraction of what we could get from.

Just to build on that, one of the things we are doing, we are in talks with a couple of organizations. I can't name them at this moment. But again, I hope to finalize this within -- by the end of this week, actually, and then move to contract stage that they will undertake independent research reports showing where ION's technology can be utilized in various sectors within the market. So whether how it can be used in data centers, how it affects environmental issues, how it affects security. So again, further validation pieces, but it just shows -- and they are -- they're going to be work and examples and fully, as I said, independent reports, whether it's good or bad, showing the benefits of ION's technology. So we hope to sign that up pretty soon. There are some exciting times coming up. And again, once we've actually got that formalized, we'll formally announce who it's with and what their intention is going forward.

One question here is about I anticipate the buyout by a hyperscaler. However, now given ION is likely to keep tech for many markets, does this change this?

I can't dictate what that end buyer wants or we would just continue doing our job and having these conversations. But it's not the first time we've had that.

Okay. Technical one for you, Finbar. Once the unrendered Virtual Video file containing data to assemble my edited video content is ready for me to view, then in order to watch it, say it's my PC, I still have to render that video file, don't I?

Yes. So Virtual Video isn't a recipe for a future render. It's got nothing to do with rendering. It's actually the antithesis of rendering. It's about just-in-time assembly of content. So if you want to save a piece of content, it's as simple as just requesting the same content to be played again. It's not about saving it. It's -- this is a world where everyone is hyperconnected now. Everyone has -- well, a lot of the world has enough bandwidth to deliver. As we're saying, 82% of all Internet traffic is video. So our solution is an orchestration of all the existing pieces of content, which is trillions of hours of content and making that more valuable. If you want to interact with that in a way, any way you want, it's as simple as a simple prompt or a command to any platform. We're not about the old world of saving a file and rendering. We're about the evolution of the market and actually playing into that evolution, not about trying to backfill. And this is a really key thing, right? We have a fundamental transformative innovation that transforms the video marketplace. It would be a mistake for us to try and now work backwards and go, "Oh, okay, well, this transformative thing, let's go back and work with the old world model." And this is why also it's important to talk to customers who are building the new stack. There's a new technology stack being built around video, which is the interface section of artificial intelligence, agents and rendered content. For us to go back and try and talk to someone who's in the business of rendering content, that's not our business. Our business is going after the new stack.

We're 40 minutes in. Probably not too much time left. I don't know, Joe, whether there's any questions which have been asked.

There's a few. I was trying to find the right place, but one of them is, obviously, Meta and Alphabet are 2 very different businesses. Are you discussing the same benefits ION provides to these companies? If so, what is that they are most interested in? Or have they -- are they interested in different things?

So there's -- we talk about we do this when we talk to a lot of organizations is we talk about the market-wide problem. The market-wide problem is rendered video is built for a different world, where you finalize and make a file and then you distribute that file. Those players are all in the understanding of the business of driving content and driving relevance through content because that's what drives their money. And so at a large thing, we talk about the same thing. We talk about the problem with rendered video and intelligent systems and being able to drive that content and that relevance and new forms of advertising, whatever. But we just talk about the market-wide problem. They come back to us with their particular use cases. So we're basically saying, imagine a world where you could do this, they then have their own needs and wants and decide. So we're not enforcing a use case on them. In fact, we're providing a foundation that allows their use cases and their problem statements that they're trying to address for them to understand how that gets solved by fundamentally changing a new medium for digital content.

That means they get it pretty quickly then Finbar.

They get pretty quick.

They get it quick, but we can confirm the use cases within both of those entities is very different.

Yes. Okay. I guess on a similar vein is in terms of product, can you talk to the cost savings of ION infrastructure for potential clients?

Depends on what they're trying to do. Again, there's different use cases. Part of what Anthony talked about with the validation and some of the different mechanisms and levers that we have in place that we'll soon be able to announce with independent verification, we'll be providing that, not our hypothesis on it, but...

Real world examples.

Real world examples tested through it. So a large part of the excitement that we're starting to get is that -- we're not...

We're going to demonstrate that. I think that's the best thing saying. If the entity what we're speaking with, we're actually saying go out and build this. You go and build a solution. Can you tell us what the cost savings are? That's only going to be on scale, but then we can scale it up accordingly. And again, it's right for us to sit here and say it's going to bring mass cost savings to the world. That's easy for us to say, let's go and prove it. Let's see -- and that's why we're willing to do and Fin is willing to do. We believe in the tech so much, we're willing to hand it over to the IP and say, let's go and build this. You prove to us the cost savings and then we can announce it.

Anything else?

One more, can ION be used to produce the right ownership of combined inputs of new branded video?

Can you read it to me again?

Can ION be used to produce the right ownership of combined inputs of new branded video?

Yes. So a secondary token can be created once a derivative work is created. So as long as there's input variables from the original rights holders through some sort of methodology, some sort of ownership, we can easily issue a secondary content token, which is a derivative token. But that would -- the token would be generated by someone else, but we have the patents that would enable that.

Yes. And another one, can you share when you get into the labs of these hyperscalers?

We will share to the market as much as we can. Obviously, we are bound by the terms of the people we're speaking to in the sense we only absolutely were able to confirm 2 names of who we're speaking to. They gave us expressed permission that they allowed us, others refused, which is very common in this industry.

I think we've got to the stage now. Anthony, did you want to just wrap up before...

Look, from my perspective, I welcome the chance to get on to the Q&A today. I think it's a very prudent and pertinent time. There's been a lot of announcements coming out to the market, and a lot has changed at ION. We are no longer Linius. I reiterate that. It is a very different business, focused on a very different, in my opinion, problem statement. And it's laser-focused. We're not trying to provide a solution to everyone. We are very targeted in who we're addressing. And we're committed to bringing value to this company. I think that's demonstrated, I reiterate by Brent and I. We are large shareholders. We want the company to succeed. We will only succeed when our shareholders succeed. So we're driven by that. And thankfully, all of our staff who we've recruited have all committed to that journey as well, which is an encouraging sign.

All right. Thanks for that, guys. I really appreciate your time. And as we said at the start, the webinar will be up on the website a little bit later today. So for anybody that wanted to rewatch it. So thanks again for your time.

Thank you.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you.

Thank you.