That proving this design would remove the single largest obstacle currently preventing us from progressing the technology. This is also why we are currently prioritizing switching to nematic SLM over increasing the size of the SLM. A larger FLC- SLM simply doesn't add the same value as proving that we can use nematic crystals. We received a great question regarding the nematic DPT. When do you expect the new nematic SLM approach to be physically validated? Could you also describe where you currently are in the development process, what work is being carried out now, and the key steps remaining before physical validation? The answer is, the process is an iterative process. In collaboration with Goworld, we are currently improving the nematic SLM design to match the performance targets we have set. We've made the first samples, and they've been measured and tested, and then certain parameters have been tweaked, and another iteration started, and so forth. This is completely as expected and as planned. The reason why we can give a more precise date is that we simply don't know exactly how many of these iterations are needed. But we are well on the way, and we have good confidence that we'll succeed. Another good question around the nematic here is, you have stated that the new nematic approach could leverage existing LCD manufacturing infrastructure. Which specific process steps in an existing high-volume nematic LCD production line would need to be modified to manufacture the new DPT SLM? Would the changes primarily involve things such as new masks, materials, cell parameters, and drive electronics, or would significant modification or replacement of production equipment be required? The answer is, with the new nematic SLM approach, there should be no need for replacements or modifications in the production equipment. That's a big difference as for the FLC. The modifications we need are within normal items like masks, materials, rubbing directions, cell parameters, compensation films, and driving electronics. Things that you would normally tweak and refine in specific displays. Another great question regarding nematic is, with the previous FLC approach, Realfiction demonstrated multi-user 3D and communicated the ability to support up to five simultaneous users. Is the new nematic SLM being designed to achieve equivalent multi-user performance? More specifically, what switching speed/number of independent views is the nematic design targeting, and do you expect it to support five multi-simultaneous users without a material compromise in image quality or other key performance parameters? Yes, we expect to achieve the same multi-user performance, including support for five simultaneous users seeing individual views. The thing is that the number of users in DPT is not limited by the speed of the SLM, as many think. It is instead linked to the speed of the LED display, which is super fast. OLED is fast as well. In other words, we're not sacrificing features like number of simultaneous users and number of different images, et cetera. The risk factors for the nematic SLM is to achieve our very ambitious targets within contrast and viewing angle. Contrast is important because in DPT, it is linked to what we call crosstalk. But as I said, our targets are indeed very ambitious. We aim simply to make the best 3D display technology. If we reach the targets we have specified, we will not only be outperforming other technologies on number of users, but also on crosstalk and viewing angle. The question here is not whether we will be able to facilitate three, four or five simultaneous users and even not allowing them to see different views. The question is only, can we do this with an above current market standard crosstalk and a wider viewing angle? This is our ambition. Another great question here. You have stated that external LCD specialists have assessed the nematic design and concluded that it appears technically feasible, both for prototyping and future industrial scale manufacturing. Could you clarify the scope of that assessment? In particular, did it include the required switching speed, multi-user performance, manufacturability, and expected compatibility with existing high-volume LCD production processes? Yes, two external LCD specialists have independently reviewed our design, our specifications, targets, as well as production requirements in mass production and larger display sizes. They have come to the same conclusion as our internal studies, which is that the risk factors they have identified are relating to achieving our targets in contrast and viewing angle. They do not see any big risks in mass production, in scaling to larger sizes, et cetera. As I said, we are collaborating with Goworld in this process of creating the nematic SLM. Goworld is a rather big manufacturer, already producing millions of units every month. They are working with the highest quality standards, and while the company as such may not be known, a lot of their customers are. Maybe some of us are even driving in cars with their displays inside it because they have a big part of their business in automotive. It is a really good and capable partner here. Our next and most important milestones are listed here. First and foremost, we want to complete the rights issue proposed to secure the company's financing, and then demonstrate DPT based on nematic crystals, proving that we can overcome that important obstacle. Then we are planning to increase the resolution with an also more compact design. Then we want to complete a 7 in trade fair-ready DPT platform that can then also be made available for others to evaluate on. Of course, during this, we need to convert technical progress into concrete commercial progress, and progress our strategic review. That brings me to the next topic, which is talking about strategic review and where we are in the process and what we intend to achieve. As you all know, we have initiated a strategic review, and we have hired Grant Thornton to identify the best commercial partners for our future development. The intention of this process is to open up for all available commercial solutions and see if we can attract any interested parties to co-invest or even potentially buy the technology. While we pursue license agreements and NRE projects, there must be no doubt that we are open for other types of commercial arrangements. This process is ongoing, and while we cannot, of course, disclose all details, I will give a couple of examples of the dialogues we have in this process. But we are not allowed to reveal the identity of our counterparts. We are not allowed to reveal specific details from our discussions, and so forth. It will be sort of a little bit superficial, but still it's examples of ongoing dialogues, right? One example is a global electronic/entertainment company. They have purchased two DPT prototypes for internal evaluation. They have this internal track that they are progressing, but they do expect DPT to be superior on their technology's performances. Their evaluation process will run during the coming months, out of our control, of course, and the outcome will then determine the next phase in this discussion. This is a good example of a huge company that are following their internal evaluation process and their own technology due diligence, and there's no way we can speed that up. There's no way we can force them to jump to a sooner conclusion or anything. Another example is a global provider of professional displays and collaboration solutions. They have requested an offer for a collaboration project. They're currently considering our offer for such a collaboration project, which would point towards eventually commercial product, of course. Another example is a company known for its digital platforms for entertainment and productivity. They actually believe that DPT has the potential to also solve the greatest pain point for head-mounted displays. They have also proposed a collaboration project. Unfortunately, the terms that they have so far proposed have not been favorable. Those terms would result in negative cash flow for us and would also require us to change focus to HMD instead of glasses-free 3D displays. Currently, this is not a sort of a high priority that we're pursuing, although we are trying to see if we can better the terms to an extent where it could eventually become interesting to do that in a way. Another example, a global networking collaboration tools and infrastructure provider. We've had a couple of physical meetings already. They have shown interest in a collaboration project, and terms are to be discussed. There are more examples, of course, but we cannot go into every example. Instead, I'm going to ask or answer a question here from an investor. Could you provide more detail on the discussions with the Chinese LED wall manufacturer? What has prevented those discussions from resulting in an agreement? Why is pursuing the proposed rights issue considered preferable for existing shareholders to reaching an agreement with this party on less favorable commercial terms? The answer is that the proposed terms from the Chinese LED wall manufacturer would result in negative cash flow for Realfiction. The NRE they are willing to pay will simply not cover our costs. While this offer presented a potential customer-driven project, it would not in any way solve our financing need. Despite efforts to renegotiate these terms, we have not been able to reach a better deal. That's the answer. It is not an alternative to financing. With that said, we're heading into the point about financing. Allow me to address those, why additional financing is required and why the rights issue has been chosen. As we said, prospective customers and industrial partners require significantly more technical validation and due diligence before committing capital or entering into development or licensing agreements than we had originally anticipated. We have demonstrated the full functionality, but we've been asked to demonstrate the scalability and manufacturability at a more detailed level. This is mainly due to the concern about the FLC being difficult to manufacture and scale in size. That's where we are, and that requires additional time and capital. A great question here allows me to elaborate. The question is, as part of the strategic review or other discussions, has Realfiction received any formal or informal indications of interest, proposals, or offers concerning an investment in the company, a strategic partnership, licensing of DPT, or an acquisition of DPT/IP or the company itself that the board ultimately decided not to pursue? The clear answer is no. We have not received any proposals or offers, not yet. It's not like we have not tried, because we have tried. Both as part of the strategic review and outside, we have tried to come up with alternative financing solutions in different shapes and forms. The fact is, there is currently no alternative solution to financing on the table. We have explained that the feedback we have received indicates a big concern around the FLC component, and we believe that our chances for commercializing DPT is better with a proven nematic solution. The absence of current alternatives and the need for clearing the obstacle of FLC maturity are the main reasons why we are proposing this capital raise. We simply don't really see an alternative. Another question. At the minimum guaranteed subscription level, the financing appears to provide a runway only until approximately June 2027. What specific technical or commercial milestones does the board expect to achieve before then that it believes could materially improve Realfiction's negotiation position or ability to obtain financing on better terms? If those milestones do not result in customer funding or another strategic transaction, should shareholders expect that another capital raise could become necessary during the first half of 2027? As part of the proposed rights issue, new shares will also include TO3 warrants that will strike in April 2027. Apart from that, the question about potential future capital raises, we can give no guarantees. We cannot promise that we'll succeed, right? We never thought we would be sitting here anyway at this point discussing this capital raise. Just to be absolutely clear, there is a risk that none of the companies we talk to will choose to invest. There is a risk that another solution appears somewhere that they would prefer over DPT. There are risks still, but we are also determined to prove the scalability and the manufacturability of the technology, and that way remove the main concern holding them back currently. We do feel that the current dialogues we are in are sufficiently serious and have gone on for so long that they are really interested in the technology. With that said, we've come to the point about the incentive program, and for that, I will hand over the word to Torben. Please, Torben. Thank you, Clas. Well, I think it is important to explain how these programs came about, because I understand shareholders have interpreted them as management seeking to obtain a very large number of options without investing alongside shareholders. That was certainly not the starting point, nor the driver of the proposal. In fact, during the financing discussions throughout the past period, potential investors wanted management to participate meaningfully in the rights issue. The rationale for that was understandable. They wanted management to have meaningful financial exposure and to remain strongly aligned with shareholders. However, the practical issue is that management simply does not have the personal liquidity to invest an amount that would make a meaningful difference in a rights issue of this size. The intention was also to retain and motivate the key people needed to take the company through this critical period and to work actively towards creating shareholder value. At the same time, we were looking for every reasonable opportunity to preserve cash and extend the company's runway. The combination of these three objectives led to the idea of reducing salaries and board remuneration, and replacing that forgone cash compensation with long-term equity incentives. There is one aspect of the background to these programs that I think is important to explain, and the starting point was not a DKK 3.6 million incentive program. As mentioned, we were looking at how management and the board could contribute to preserving cash during the financing period, while at the same time creating stronger alignment with shareholders. The initial thinking was approximately 12 months of reduced salaries and board remuneration, corresponding to approximately SEK 1.8 million in cash savings. But when we worked with our legal advisors on the structure, we were advised that a long-term incentive program should have a vesting period of at least 24 months. We considered that if participants were required to vest their options over 24 months, the corresponding commitment to reduced cash remuneration should cover the same period. Therefore, we extended the salary and remuneration reductions from 12 to 24 months. That doubled the cash savings to the company from approximately SEK 1.8 million to approximately SEK 3.6 million, but it also doubled the compensation amount underlying the option calculation. This is how we arrived at SEK 3.6 million. It was not because we initially set out to create an incentive program of that size. It resulted from extending the cash saving commitment to correspond with a 24 months vesting period. The question is: why does the calculated number of options become so large that we have in the program? That is a good question that I will try to explain here. The maximum of 60 million options should not be confused with the number currently resulting from the illustrative calculation that you have in front of you. At a subscription price of, let us say, SEK 0.1, the current calculation results in approximately 57.5 million options. When the proposals were prepared, however, the final parameters determining the Black-Scholes value were not yet known, and on the advice of our legal advisors, the proposals therefore needed to include a maximum number of options, and the 60 million maximum was set to provide sufficient headroom for rounding and uncertainty in the final Black-Scholes calculation. It was not an objective to allocate 60 million options. Before discussing the size of the incentive programs, I think it's important to understand the mathematics, because different subscription prices produce very different absolute numbers of shares and options. The rights issue is intended to raise up to approximately SEK 36 million. At a subscription price of one, that would require approximately 36 million new shares. While at SEK 0.1, a fully subscribed rights issue would require about approximately 360 million new shares. At the guaranteed 60% level, that would be approximately 216 million new shares. These are illustrative scenarios, and we include the SEK 0.1 scenario because SEK 0.1 is the minimum subscription price under the announced rights issue structure, and therefore represents the scenario in which the original incentive program could result in the largest number of options. Turning to the incentive programs, the original method was designed around approximately SEK 3.6 million of cash remuneration being foregone over 24 months. As the share price and exercise price decrease, the calculated Black-Scholes value of each option decreases, resulting in a larger number of options for the same underlying Krona amount. At SEK 1, the calculation results in approximately 5.7 million options. But at a price of SEK 0.1, it results in 57.5 million. The very large number of options in the SEK 0.1 scenario is a consequence of applying the original valuation methodology at the minimum subscription price. It does not reflect an increase in the Swedish Krona amount of remuneration being replaced. As shown on the slide, each new share subscribed in the rights issue also carries one TO3 warrant free of charge. The number of TO3 warrants issued will therefore correspond to the number of new rights issue shares. I'll return to the potential impact of TO3 when we put the dilution from the incentive program into perspective. However, explaining the mathematics does not in itself mean that we believe an allocation of 57.5 million options is reasonable in the current circumstances. That brings me to the next slide. We recognize that at the lower end of the possible subscription price range, the original valuation methodology can produce a number of options that is much larger than we initially envisaged, and that this comes at a time when shareholders are already facing substantial dilution. We think it's reasonable to respond to that, and we therefore propose to limit the actual allocation to 50% of the number resulting from the original methodology while maintaining the full 24 months reductions in cash salaries and board remuneration. There's also some logic behind the 50% reduction. As explained earlier, the original concept was based on approximately 12 months of cash reductions, representing approximately SEK 1.8 million. The amount increased to SEK 3.6 million when the cash reduction period was extended to 24 months to correspond with the vesting period. Under what we are now proposing, participants would still maintain the full 24 months cash reductions, providing approximately SEK 3.6 million of cash savings to the company, while the initial calculated value of the options allocated would approximately be SEK 1.8 million. In the SEK 0.1 maximum options scenario, this would mean approximately 30 million options rather than approximately 60 million options. The participants would therefore give up approximately SEK 3.6 million of cash remuneration over the 24 months while receiving options with an initial calculated value of approximately SEK 1.8 million. We believe this preserves the objective of cash conservation, retention, and long-term alignment while materially reducing the potential dilution for shareholders. To understand the maximum potential dilutive impact of the incentive programs, it is also useful to put the SEK 0.1 scenario into the context of the potential future share count. At a subscription price of SEK 0.1, the guaranteed 60% level of rights issue would result in approximately 216 million new shares. Together with the existing shares, the company would then have approximately 240 million shares outstanding. If the proposed approximately 28.7 million options were subsequently fully vested and exercised, they would represent approximately 10.7% of the resulting number of shares. If the rights issue is fully subscribed, approximately 360 million new shares would be issued, and the corresponding percentage from the options would be approximately 7%. There is another relevant part of the capital structure. Each new share in the rights issue also carries the TO3 warrant, and if all TO3 warrants were subsequently exercised, the relative share of the incentive program options would be approximately 5.9% in a 60% rights issue scenario, and approximately 3.7% in a fully subscribed scenario. I want to stress that we are not presenting full exercise to TO3 as a certainty. Whether the TO3 warrants are exercised will depend on future circumstances, including the applicable exercise terms and share price. We show it because it is relevant to understand the potential future capital structure. Equally, potential future dilution from TO3 does not remove the dilution caused by the incentive programs. This is one of the reasons why we believe it is appropriate to materially reduce the option allocation. Let us go through a couple of questions. We have heard the criticism of the incentive programs. We do not agree with the suggestion that they were designed to enrich management at the expense of shareholders. The idea of the incentive programs originated from a genuine need to preserve cash, to retain people, and to create stronger alignment during a critical period for the company. At the same time, we recognize that options and shares are not economically identical. Shareholders participating in the rights issue invest cash immediately and put that capital at risk. Option participants do not make the same upfront investment, and we do not want to suggest otherwise. The options are, however, not free shares. Participants give up cash remuneration for 24 months. The options are subject to vesting. An exercise price must be paid to acquire shares, and the options will only create economic value if the future share price supports exercise. We have also been asked why management does not simply receive its normal salary and use the salary to purchase shares. That would address alignment, but it would defeat the cash preservation objective. Once salary has been paid, the cash has left the company. Reducing salaries preserves that liquidity. Personal investments by management are a separate matter, but management does not have the personal liquidity to provide financing at a scale that would materially change the company's financing requirement. We therefore believe that the revised approach, maintaining the full SEK 3.6 million cash saving while reducing the calculator option allocation by 50%, represents a more balanced outcome. We recognize the concern about granting options at a time when shareholders are facing significant dilution. This is exactly why we proposed to reduce the actual option allocation by 50% while maintaining the full 24 months reduction in salaries and board remuneration. There is also a broader consideration for shareholders to consider. Realfiction is at a critical stage. We are working to physically validate the new nematic SLM approach and move DPT further towards industrialization and commercialization. At the same time, we continue our commercial dialogues and the strategic review, including the evaluation of potential strategic opportunities. The ultimate objective is to create the best possible outcome for all shareholders, whether that comes through commercial success, licensing or industrial partnerships, or ultimately through a strategic transaction at a meaningful value. Achieving such an outcome requires that key people who have the knowledge, relationships, and experience needed to drive these processes remain fully committed, highly motivated, and strongly aligned with shareholders throughout this critical period. This is an important part of the rationale for the incentive programs. They are not only about preserving cash by replacing cash remuneration with equity-based remuneration, they are also intended to retain key people and give them a meaningful long-term financial interest in maximizing shareholder value. For shareholders, the relevant question is therefore not only what the incentive program may cost in potential dilution, but also what long-term alignment, retention, and motivation may contribute to the value of their remaining shares. We recognize that these considerations have to be balanced. We listen to the concerns raised by our shareholders, and we recognize that the number of options resulting from the original methodology could become too large at the lower end of the possible subscription price range. Under the approach we are now proposing, participants would maintain the full 24 months reductions in salary and board remuneration, providing approximately SEK 3.6 million of cash savings to the company, while the number of options resulting from the original methodology would be reduced by 50%. Ultimately, shareholders will decide whether they believe this revised approach strikes the right balance. We have tried tonight to explain openly why the programs were introduced, how the original numbers arose, and why we believe it is appropriate to respond to the concerns raised by you and our shareholders. We believe the revised approach is a materially more balanced outcome for the company, the participants, and our shareholders. It preserves significant cash for the company, materially reduces the potential dilution compared with the original methodology, while maintaining meaningful long-term incentives for the people who will be working to create the best possible outcome for all shareholders. We have tried tonight to explain openly why the programs were introduced, how the numbers arose, and why we believe it is appropriate to respond to the concerns, and we believe this. Yes, I think I have said that once. Thank you so much for that. I will hand it over to you, Clas, and let us open for the questions. Yeah. This does conclude the planned presentation and us addressing the questions that were already sent to us in advance. With that, we'll stop sharing the view and start looking at questions asked during the presentation. Okay. I can start by answering the first one here. Question is, how much will founders/management actually commit in the rights issue? Time has come to actually put your money where your mouth is and risk your own money. As we also addressed here, we have said all along that we are interested in participating. The solution that was found most favorable, both for the company and for everyone involved, is the proposed one. That does not overrule the option of us participating as well on the side. We'll see, depending also what shareholders will decide. Of course, I cannot speak for entire management or anything else. I do believe I saw a hand raised during the presentation, but maybe we managed to answer the question along. Currently, we don't have any unanswered questions in the Q&A section. Again, in Teams, there is an item in the menu bar called Q&A. If you press that one, you can type a question. You can also raise your hand, and we can then enable your microphone, and you can verbally address the question to us, which we'll answer as good as we can. One hand is raised. Stephan, your microphone has been enabled, so if you unmute yourself, you should be able to ask your question. Please, can you unmute? Stephan, we cannot hear you, so if you unmute on your end. I hope it's not a technical problem. Stephan, you should currently be able to press unmute on your end and then speak out your question. No. Okay. Let's try the next one. Martin, please try and unmute yourself. Yes. If you look back at the past three years and compare the assumptions you made at the time regarding both the technology, commercialization, partnerships, financing, the timelines with what you know today, which decisions or priorities would you have approached differently? Yeah, that is a great question. This is, of course, a theoretical answer, but if we knew back then what we know today, of course, some decisions would have been made earlier. I am now thinking about the FLC problem. We did not know that at the time. We were told that it was not an issue at all and that the implementation was a lot easier. Throughout the experience, we then learned it was more difficult, which again led to difficulties in the commercialization. Looking back at the options we have had along the way, my big regret is that we have not succeeded sooner. I do not have any specific decision or regret that we could have made differently at the time with the knowledge we had. Do you have anything specific in mind? No. I was thinking about the question since I think the communication throughout the years has been really optimistic. Of course, I believe you have believed in your strategy and have done efforts in line with your vision. But I think it is important to also be very self-critical in the way we have moved and actually not succeeded with, I would say, most of the communicated path towards commercialization and the partnerships and so on. I was just thinking about where it went wrong, what type of assumptions you made that were clearly wrong, and how you are addressing this moving forward? Yeah. I completely agree. We have been looking back now. We have been too optimistic early on in our communication. We did actually believe we were a lot closer. Also, we were encouraged by our first commercial revenue with the first project that we had. Also, I must say, we were encouraged by the dialogues we had, the meetings we had, the signals we got from the potential customers. We have been surprised by the slow tempo of decisions and the hesitation from the customer sides. I do sincerely believe that a lot had to do with the FLC concerns. But of course, looking back now, it is clear that we were too optimistic too soon. Any other questions? There are a couple of questions in the Q&A, Clas, if you want to go to that. Yes, yep. Yeah. Let me see. There is one question here about all the patents that you have. "Is it the shareholders who own these in case of the company being put down, or are the patents owned by yourselves?" No, the patents are not owned by individuals or ourselves. The patents are owned by the company, so ultimately the shareholders. Lyndon B. Johnson asks, "What milestones are next?" The first and really important milestone, of course, is to complete the rights issue, since there are no alternatives on the table as we see it. We have also heard some theories about whether voting it down and then taking on the bankruptcy would be a more preferable and more economically favorable solution for the shareholders. We in the board cannot see how that would pan out. We have gone through many different alternatives, as I also said earlier. The next milestones are the very important nematic proving, which is the big hurdle on the commercial side, as we said. Then, of course, then we need to prove that that actually opens up the commercial breakthrough. An important milestone is the result of the internal validation by one of the potential customers here. Very serious and long and deep discussion that is ongoing, and truly hope that we will have a good evaluation outcome. Let us see. What else? Maybe, Torben, if you want me to address some questions, then please choose, and then I can answer. Very good. There is one from Adam Gemming asking, "How strong is your confidence on producing a product that will generate significant cash flow before July 2027 to avoid further dilution? I do not see us producing a product within that timeline that would significantly provide revenue, because producing an actual product in a mass production scenario would take longer than that. But I do think it is realistic that we achieve either an investment case scenario by a strategic company or a potential sale of the technology, if that is more favorable, after a positive nematic SLM case. I think that is more realistic within that timeline. There are many things in between, of course. We could strike a sort of a middle ground with a commercial-driven project that does not. The question is then what is significant cash, but that does not necessarily completely cover our cash burn for the entire period of the project. Then that would require us to have either more than one project or a co-investment case or some other sort of capital injection. Yeah. We have another one. Yeah. If you look back at the past three years and compare the assumptions. Okay, that is what I answered verbally, right? I answered that verbally earlier. This one from Linus asking, it is coming up now, Clas. Collaboration deals examples that you talked about earlier, what is the magnitude of those deals? You have apparently received a few proposals that would result in negative revenue earlier on. Are the new ones any better? Yeah. Good question. We are not, and that is also what I said in the presentation, we do not have any concrete proposals or amounts on the table that represents an alternative financing here. That means we have not yet reached the negotiation part of the major deals that we hope to be in, as soon as we prove the nematic SLM. We have, on the other hand, been quite aggressive. So we have directly approached several of those companies, also companies outside of the strategic review process. We have proposed many different types of solutions in different forms and shapes. So that is what we have tried to do to come up with an alternative solution. So we have proposed everything from NRE projects at certain economic levels that would help or at least prolong the runway. We have even sort of tried proposing a technology sale, stuff like that. So we have really tried many different things, and it is not like, and this example where we proposed a technology sale because it was kind of obvious to try it, the answer was not no. The answer was more time is needed, so we are not going to respond within the given timeframe, which then ultimately, again, allows us no other choice. So this again is an example that these companies are not necessarily in the same hurry as we are. Just to put it like that. They have enough time. It is not life and death for them. Whether some of them are speculating in bankruptcy, I do not know. But sometimes it almost feels like they are doing the waiting game. Yeah. Do you have another one? Another one from Adam coming up here. Before taking on the loan from Fenja, you mentioned that you were pursuing different alternatives for financing. I assume the same alternatives were revisited during the current financial concern. What has been the reason for investors to not be intrigued by the low market value? Some of the alternative financing options we were visiting before taking on the loan are not possible for us to take on as long as we have the loan. Others have been pursued, but I do think it's obvious that for any new investor at the moment, Realfiction seems like a high risk because, as I said, we have not succeeded, and we clearly take that responsibility. We have not succeeded commercially in time. I also want to state that we are challenged on the component side, which we are addressing. With that risk and with a non-commercially proven technology that has to then prove itself on a component scale, the timing is really bad. Therefore, I understand that new investors are cautious and seeing it as a high risk. Even though the value is low, is not always in a new investor's eye a good offer. Could also indicate a very risky offer. I have noticed that there is a hand raised, and I'll come back to you, Johan. Let me cover a couple of the written questions first. There's one from Malmer coming up here, Clas. So the question is, hypothetically, if you would succeed with the nematic SLM, how long until the first big deal arrives? We need more detailed timeline on the way forward. I completely understand the question. I cannot give the answer. I do read the word hypothetically, but it is not a question that we can seriously answer. What we will do is that as soon as we hopefully prove very soon the nematic SLM, provided of course that we are given the longer runway, then we will be more direct and more precise and more aggressive in our commercial offering of the technology. This is what we already have planned to do, but I cannot foresee a specific timeline. There is a question from Sigvard coming up here. Question is, why did you set this price in the rights issue when the stock price was SEK 3, and why did you go with a span and not a set price? Shall I assist in this, Clas? Yes, please do. Or should we ask maybe. Well, at least I can start. Of course, we have been through a lengthy process of finding solutions, commercial and et cetera, that Clas has informed about. When it became apparent, and when we also informed our shareholders that we would have cash until the end of the summer, we needed to find solutions. Of course, we started sounding the markets through our financial advisors, sounding the market for potential solutions, reaching out. We contacted, of course, our largest shareholders, had dialogues with them. It was unfortunate that we were unable to secure a deal at a high level. We have been advised by financial advisors throughout the period. They have taken on the obligation of performing a sounding, which was done living up to market standards and done in the normal way that such soundings are done. Since there was no participation from larger shareholders, it was really difficult to find a solution at another level than what we ended up with. When I say difficult, it means it was impossible. There was absolutely no other solution on the table. We were not offered anything else. This is the best solution that came. It is, I can say, a better solution than the alternative, which would be to not exist a lot longer. I do not know if that answers the question fully. It was basically based on the market sounding did not allow us a better price with the situation that we had, unfortunately. Let me answer one question here from Malmer. Are AUO completely out of the picture? Well, they have decided, as I said in the presentation, to currently halt the project they were working on with the FLC because they found FLC too difficult, but also due to a strategic decision inside AUO about halting almost every LCD development project they had. LCD is becoming more and more a Chinese thing because China has invested so much in expanding LCD capacity that they are lowering the price all over. The Taiwanese and of course the Japanese a long while ago, but even also the Koreans are almost giving up on LCD manufacturing as such. AUO is aware that DPT is not really considered an LCD technology as such, as LCD is used not as a display in our case, but as a spatial light modulator. AUO, as you are aware, of course, is a very big player within the MicroLED segment, where DPT is certainly attractive, and this is also why they were interested in the first place. For my part and for our part, we certainly don't see AUO as completely out at all. They do have the capacity, they do have the equipment and the technology to do it. If we succeed with the nematic design, we are completely within the specifications that they told us was certainly doable for mass production. With that, we would be in-game again. That's of course, part of our plan as soon as we have the proven design to approach a lot of the players, including AUO again. We know for a fact that AUO is also considered a well-respected supplier for several of the companies that we are discussing with in the strategic review. AUO could also be selected even by the brand side as a manufacturer of the product. There's another question from Lyndon B. Johnson. Are you planning to attend new fairs? Good question. Currently not, actually, because the fairs we have attended has been to extend the reach, bringing in the dialogues that we needed to find new dialogues. I'm not saying that we will not attend new fairs. It could be decided at a later stage, but I'm saying that we are actually currently not missing dialogues. We are more missing the technical proof on the scalability side. We are focusing our efforts currently on those things. But could be a thing once we have the new and improved POCs. Maybe we should open up for Johan, who has been waiting patiently. Yes, please. Johan, I am enabling your microphone. Please unmute and let us hear your question. There we go. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Lovely. I was hoping to reply a bit earlier there, but here we are now. I am trying to do that because I am interested to hear what you were saying there, Clas, about actually it almost feels like they are putting you on hold when you were talking about the counterpart. They want to make you run out of cash, and that is sort of a theory that has been going on as well among investors that actually the IP is worth an awful lot of money. You have also actually mentioned that a handful of these discussions that you are having with these companies are in the level of potential acquisition of the entire DPT technology or the company. Also, whilst I am on that slide, that actually comes from the AGM, and that was from one of us asked to be put up online, otherwise we would not have seen it at all. This is where you first describe all the companies that you are in discussions with. How come we were not able to see this until someone asked about it to be put online? Also, with what you said about they want you to run out of cash, what would you say about that? Because obviously if it comes to it, then these companies are actually willing to buy the company, potentially. Currently we are being diluted with 10 x the shares. Even for us at this, currently it is worth SEK 12 million, which is nothing. For us, if we put dollars on that instead, it is 10 x the money currently. For us, it is impossible to understand that it could not possibly be worth that for anyone to even take a chance on the technique at this very stage, because it is such a brilliant technique and we have seen it before. For anyone, let us say Sony, if we pretend that that is the global entertainment/electronics company, why would they not just buy it if they can? Really good question, Johan. Thank you. We have been wondering that ourselves, but I do sincerely believe that the answer is that it is not really the value that is holding them back, or the amount. Companies in that size are not too worried, I totally agree, are not too worried about amounts in this category, even whether it is with more figures or not. But consider that the people pushing up an outside coming technology or recommending an outside coming technology, and this is something that we have been told along the way also. People that are inside a huge organization recommending an outside technology have to be 1,000% sure that it will succeed, otherwise they will lose the job, or at least their position and honor in the company and what have you. So even huge companies have sometimes a much longer decision process than smaller companies. Although they can afford it easily, the decision making is. And this is from my experience, and I am not saying it is an eternal truth, but it is my experience, is that the decision process is by no means simple in a big technology company. You had a question about the material from the AGM. Yeah, correct. We did not really put it up on our own account. So we have improved in that sense. So we are more aware of putting up things like that online. We mentioned this. As a comment to that, what I think. Sorry for interrupting, but I was thinking you could almost be a bit like a conspiracy theory, that you would actually not even want the stock to go up because you have already planned this, and potentially not to highlight the fact that you are talking to these global companies that are obviously huge, reading the descriptions of them. It makes us think it is really funny that you are actually trying to not show them to us, hence why I was asking why we did not see it. Also, may I just comment on your memorandum, which clearly states that now is a good time to enter for an acquisitor or for anyone that wants to sort of buy the company, and this is sort of part of the strategic review that you have had together with Grant Thornton, and obviously it makes people believe that you are actually trying to make someone buy the company. Yet, then we see this solution, and it makes us think something funny is going on. Okay. Well, I do not think it is funny. I am being diluted as well. There is no fishy things going on here, I can assure you. This is really the second worst scenario in our book. Worst scenario, of course, being not finding any solution and ending up belly up. Now, we have managed to find a solution, even though it is not super attractive for existing shareholders. We completely understand that. The balance is, Johan, that and it is a balance. Naming these discussions and these, or almost naming these huge counterparts, it really is a balance because if we do it too much, we are accused of being over-positive or pumping the share price, and we really do not want to do that, because we already see people being in a clinch or being hurt by having bought at a higher price and now being part of this critical phase in the company. It really is a balance. But on the other hand, we have, and we want to be as transparent as possible. We do want to be honest about the fact that there are huge companies interacting with us, some of them on a weekly basis, on a very detailed level, on technology due diligence level. Now also purchasing prototypes, doing internal evaluations. We have to tell you that, and we are open about it, and we have done so also in press release. But it really is a balance because there are no guarantees, and we cannot. I can also not understand why no one has sort of pushed the button yet and offered to buy us. We have been pulling our hairs and asking ourselves that several times, and again, as I said, we have been trying aggressively. To stress those situations or to speed up those situations, but it has so far been fruitless, not because of lack of interest, but because they are following a process and a decision-making process or an evaluation process that we cannot interfere with. That is the answer they give us. The rest is speculation. Yeah. Thanks for that. I was just wondering on the same note that we never got a separate press release from when you actually sold the two evaluation units. You sort of baked that into a big DPT update, which, in my book, in a way, is a bit weird because obviously that was a big thing, especially if it is who we think it is that bought them. Obviously, you cannot reveal yet why did you put that in together with a general DPT update and not a separate press release. Didn't we put it in the press release that they ordered it? Remind me, Torben. No, it was together with the DPT update. It was in the general update press release. It was not a separate press release. I believe the reason was. One reason was that it was a lower value amount and was at a. It was not a, you can say, a final decision to make a long-term commitment with us. It was a purchase to allow them to investigate further and to continue due diligence process that we had already, you can say, informed to the market about. It is an ongoing process, as I recall it. I do not have the specific details in my head right now, but I believe that is the case. Okay. Thank you. I am truly self-critical about the point of communication, and we are constantly thinking about how we can improve. But we find it to be a rather difficult balance, especially at the moment, because some people think we are overly optimistic and trying to pump the price, and others think we are not aggressive enough in the way that we market and say that we have the superior technology and all that. We are simply trying to find a serious balance where we are not overselling things. Again, I must say the fact is that currently we have not been presented with, and we have not succeeded finding a better alternative than the proposed one. If there is any better alternative out there that presents itself, and we will do what we can before the AGM, then we will have a choice. Currently, we see no other alternative. But if someone out there has any brilliant ideas, it is important to state that we also heard some speculation about the amounts needed. It is important to say that the amounts needed currently cannot be lower than the secured level in the rights issue here. If an alternative should be presented, the amount actually has to be higher, at least with the remaining part of the loan, because any alternative solution not including the loan giver would make the complete loan default. What I am saying is an alternative solution, if it should present enough runway to succeed with the nematic SLM, which we think is important, we believe is important for the commercial success, then the amount presented should be at least equivalent to SEK 28 million. There is a question which I believe is fairly simple to reply to here, that comes up now, Clas. Yeah. What are happening with the legacy products? What we have done is we have started licensing the legacy products. That is a strategic choice, because by doing so, we are still getting revenue from the legacy products by allowing previous resellers of those products to manufacture them on their own and market them under our brands. On the other hand, we can simplify our structure. We can save costs by not having to allocate costs in manufacturing and stocking of products and marketing of new products and all that. So that is what we are doing, and we have sort of gradually communicated that we are ramming down our efforts on the legacy products. Those products are targeting a niche, and they have quite a few years on their back. Still brilliant products in my view, still catching people's attention out there, but yeah. It is on a negative growth path for us and has been for a few years, so we wanted to focus on the main value for the shareholders, which is seen as DPT, of course, needed to be proved. Okay. Shall we allow Johan to- Yes You are now able to unmute, Johan. Thank you very much. I was thinking about the fact that you have been saying for a while now that within the coming months, you expect the NLC to be validated, not only theoretically, but only actual validation. You mentioned earlier, Clas, I cannot remember exactly what you said, but you said something about having managed to do it now with Goworld, but you are tweaking it, and it was about the contrast and also the viewing angle. Are you saying you have actually managed to validate it now and actually to build the display? They put together, beforehand they have done both of your proof of concept that we could see and the cannon as you call it. No. Actually manufacturing the first iteration of the component and then validating the nematic approach on DPT is two different things. Yes, we have manufactured first iterations of the SLM. They are being tweaked and improved. But for us to validate that the nematic approach works with DPT, we have to validate the complete functionality, which certainly includes having a good enough contrast, because with a too bad contrast, you cannot make a good 3D display. What we have seen so far with the FLC, the FLCs in the SLM were not technically super high contrast, I must say. We were also struggling a little bit with that, but still the result in DPT on the contrast level, on the crosstalk level, was very impressive. This has been replied by many industrial partners seeing it live. I am personally quite convinced that we will manage to find a good crosstalk level, but still seeing is believing. We need to prove it. Being a milestone and being we have communicated it is a milestone, we will, of course, communicate clearly as soon as we believe that we have validated the approach. No question about that. We are not there yet, and again, the reason why I would say coming months is that it is an iterative process. We do not know exactly how many iterations are required. We do not foresee a lot, and therefore we are not saying half a year or whatever, but that is why we are being slightly more precise than that. Would you say that within the coming months is. Why have you expressed yourself in those terms? Because within the coming months would have been by now, maybe, potentially, yet you cannot really foresee it still. Has something gone wrong, or is it more a matter of not actually knowing, and why did you then communicate within the coming months in the first place? No, nothing has gone wrong, and I do not believe we are inaccurate in what we have communicated. Not to my understanding, at least. Okay. Yeah. We could potentially see that in a different way. I was thinking if you cannot say now, yet you have been saying for 3-4 months that within the coming months it will be validated, but I understand it is still a tricky thing to answer correctly. Torben, correct me if I am wrong, I do not think we have been saying that for three or four months, have we? I believe we have stated that since June 30th. Is that the timing we That's two months now. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Could well be that I was wrong in the time, but yeah. Even so, for a while. Yeah. As Clas said, it's a process which is repetitive, you can say. It's a process where we go through cycles of the process and improve from day to day. The question then, of course, is how long time it's going to take before we are at the level where we are satisfied with the various technical progress. So it's an iterative process, as Clas said, and that is why we can't say it's going to take two months or three months. Coming months is at least providing some information that it's not within the next year. It's not within the next half year. It's the coming months, but we cannot say anything less, at least. That would be unwise based on our expectation of the process. Yet, if I may just comment another time, if you don't think I'm taking up too much time. I'm sorry. Quite all right. Yeah. Thanks. I was thinking, because you've made it into such a big milestone anyway, and you've said once this is actually achieved, then this opens up mass production, and this is what people have been waiting for. So obviously, it still needs to be the quality, but we already know that NLC can be mass produced, yet FLC couldn't. So this is the big milestone that opens up, and it makes us think why such a long runway then, or why this big dilution and why this. In that sense, it feels like it could potentially have been done differently in terms of taking in the money needed as well to just sort of achieve this, if it's already actually sort of validated and sort of built, yet not fully achieved what you want to achieve. I think also looking back at the various commercialization processes we have been through, we have learned that just by reaching a technical milestone does not allow us to actually sell a license. It takes time from date when we actually have the technical validator in hand to present that to counterparties, to potential licensees, and to speed up in a process is difficult. We are quite far in various discussions, so it's easy to reignite those discussions when we come and show the newest validator. But believing that that can then be done like this would be unwise. We need some time after the validation has taken place to actually become successful. That is also why we are trying to preserve as much cash as possible to extend the runway as much as possible. That is one question which I'm going to post now, which I'm also replying to by saying this, that we are actually The question is, what is the point of preserving cash for 12 months and even 24 months when you expect liquidity through Q2 2027? That is simply to make sure that we have money for extra months and we want to make sure that we have money until June because that will allow us some time to actually carry through with the commercial activities after we have the validator in hand, if we achieve the validation, which we believe we will, but it is of course not certain yet. Clas, please add if there's anything else you want to add. No, I can reply another question here. The Japan interview, was there a special reason? No, the reason was that they reached out, wanted to do an interview. There was no cost involved. Yeah. Free publicity somehow, although it's not a big magazine enterprise. I know. What else? Another question, where's the NLC, the nematic SLM being developed? Taiwan? No, it's in China at Goworld. So Goworld, our partner in Shantou, the town is called, in China. There's a question from Lyndon B. Johnson asking if we could get more funding from the one we applied for before, and I guess that is Innovation Fund Denmark. Certainly there are funding opportunities in that space, soft funding. That is, of course, something we have been looking into doing, but with the commercial process being in, say, taking place, then it's limiting the number of programs that you can actually get funding from because funding is given for research and development. Of course, we are doing that, but we are doing it at a pace which is faster than these programs would really allow us to. Therefore, if we were to seek any funding from these programs, we would have to slow down our pace, and we don't want to do that. Another question from Peer. Can you, oh, sorry. Didn't manage to put it up there. What kind of offer? Yeah, exactly. For the entire company would you consider accepting at this maybe? I guess that is actually a question for all of us, right? At the current point in time. Please also consider that this entire recording will be available on the website for also potential customers. But any concrete offer we would have to communicate. It is not like we are hiding any concrete offers out there. It would be up to shareholders to decide. There is one here from Manus. Given everything you currently know about the company, its technology, development status, financing situation, would you personally consider this to be a high-risk investment at this stage? I would say yes. That is the reason why we have not been able to find better solutions. That is a hypothetical reply, but that is my guesstimate. New question from Lyndon B. Johnson here. Why does not Goworld like to be a partner? Goworld is effectively investing in our partnership by collaborating on very low payment, by investing resources both on R&D side, but also on engineering side in our collaboration. Goworld, as many other Chinese companies, are partly government-owned, and as such, they cannot just directly invest in a small company from Sweden. Again, it is not like it has not been tried. But they do hope that we and our shareholders see their genuine interest in the fact that they are still eagerly pursuing the technology together with Realfiction and investing otherwise in engineering, manufacturing, so on. It is worth noting that Goworld is also developing on the mLED side. Always a discussion whether it is Mini- LED or MicroLED, whatever. The fact is that they are also the company manufacturing our next generation on higher resolution LED. So they are improving fast on many different aspects. Goworld is an interesting company. They are very good on the innovation side. Goworld does have a current limitation, which is size, so display size. So their equipment is currently not capable of making very large size displays. But they are not unwilling to discuss investing if the right scenario is presented. As I see it, that is the only sort of real current limitation. Otherwise, it is a really good partner so far for us. Another short question. The price rumor in last report, was that from Goworld? No, it was not. It was from the Chinese LED wall manufacturer that we have been negotiating with, and that was mentioned earlier. Some technical questions on whether there is a lock-up period in the agreement with BATO. I believe it is a customary agreement, but I am unable to comment on any details of specific agreements. We can take another question from J.K. here. AmTRAN has been a major shareholder and strategic partner for many years and was previously described as providing a clear path to mass production and sales. What role does AmTRAN actually play today in the commercialization of DPT? Well, currently they do not have an active role in the commercialization because they are not a panel manufacturer, which means that they cannot manufacture the SLM. So what they need is a mass manufacturable complete device with a finished SLM component that is mass manufactured elsewhere. So the problem for us to include AmTRAN in the commercialization process is the same as including AUO and other manufacturers is the SLM component. As long as it uses the FLC crystal, it is currently too difficult to mass manufacture and also to scale up in size. Next part of the question, considering the deep knowledge of technology, why have they not chosen to make a more significant new financial commitment if they share management confidence in its commercial potential? We cannot comment whether they at which level they will invest. Of course, generally, I can say we have visited all larger shareholders in our effort to build as good a capital raise term book as possible, and the terms presented indicate that we found it slightly difficult to get good support. That is what I can say. There is a question here from Lyndon B. Johnson stating, "Comment the Holy Grail," and I believe it is referring to the fact that we have discussed this, our technology as being the Holy Grail, and that is some wording we have used in the past, Clas. Something you want to comment on? Okay. What we meant by that is that, as I said in the beginning of the presentation, the 3D displays have come and gone. The previous wave of 3D displays involved the users having to wear glasses. That was really seen as a huge negative side effect. The current wave of 3D displays are glasses free and providing a much better experience and are selling above expectations. But the technology used to create the glasses-free experience is based on what is called a lenticular optic approach, where you have a sheet of micro-lenses on top of the display, and then you reduce the resolution, or you split the resolution in two. Half of the resolution goes to one eye, and the other half of the resolution goes to the first eye, to the second eye. Thereby, if they can form a good crosstalk, you get a really nice 3D experience if you have a high-resolution display and if you have one viewer. If you start splitting that image up to many viewers, it is simply currently too difficult because you either end up having too low a resolution per perceived image, or other problems like Looking Glass Factory is a good example of a multi-user 3D display. Looking Glass Factory can facilitate many users at the same time. They are able to pass back and forth in front of a display, only in the horizontal direction, though, they have different perspectives of the 3D scene. Problem is that they use an extremely high-resolution display, which is very expensive, but the perceived resolution is low, and on top of that, the 3D depth is very blurred. Every part of the image that goes a bit into the screen or comes a little bit out of the screen very quickly becomes super blurred. This is because they have fixed view positions, which is inevitable when you use optics. They have crossovers in view sections, so when you move, you constantly sort of see a mix of different view zones, and therefore the image becomes blurred. What we mean about Holy Grail is that finding the right solution to create multi-user glasses-free 3D displays is, of course, not a Holy Grail for everything in this world. That is not what we mean about it, but within 3D displays, and specifically within glasses-free 3D displays. In our case, multi-view displays entirely could be 2D displays showing different 2D images in different directions. A solution like the one we present can unlock highly sought-after new use cases and features that they are currently not capable of succeeding with. That is why we use that term, is we see this as a way to unlock totally new use cases. Luckily, we are not the only ones seeing it. Big companies evaluating it are concerned about some technical facts. We do not have to persuade them about the commercial perspective. They are more interested in the technical due diligence process. How expensive will it be to manufacture? How difficult will it be to manufacture? How large can it be? All those things are what they are concerned about, so that is what we are spending a lot of time on in those dialogues. Hope that was good enough answer. Should we take another question, Torben? You are muted. Yep, and I just posted one. Okay. When in the future would you think the FLC-SLM will become more viable product and more attractive? That, of course, depends heavily on when a larger company starts implementing a manufacturing process for that. Please, Clas, elaborate a bit if you can. Yeah, no, you are totally right. I think if we succeed with the nematic SLM, there won't be an imminent need for the FLC solution. On the longer run, there are some potential further development possibilities in the FLC because it is still faster, and therefore, there are still things that you can eventually improve further with the FLC. So it is not becoming irrelevant as such, but when in the future really depends, as Torben said, when it will be commercially available in production. Even though we have tried to push it, we have learned that we, as a small company, cannot drive the implementation of a technology like the FLC crystal. It is simply too big a task. Takes too long. It requires too much capital for us to drive it in any material way. There is a question referring to the past. I am posting it now, Clas. Where many years ago, we provided this SEK 100 million revenue prognosis about future pitch to investors. Is this number still relevant, or were you maybe a bit too optimistic previously? That is a fair question looking in hindsight and seeing that we actually do not have recurring revenue at this point. The reasons of that is, of course, as Clas has explained throughout tonight, that the FLC has proved more difficult to implement in the manufacturing processes and as such has discouraged larger display companies and technology companies from actually entering into agreements with us. We believe the business case is there. We believe that the need in the various use cases for 3D displays is there. But of course, we have not succeeded at this point. We do believe that the business case is intact for the company that actually solves the technological barrier, and that is what we believe, and we hope that we are on a good path of doing. We do not have the solution yet. We do not have the validation yet. We are unable to convince display companies without actually providing the proof and seeing is believing in this industry. As such, we are working hard to accomplish that. As soon as we do that, we do believe that there is a future for this business case, and a good future for that. The question is, of course, will Realfiction be able to be the selected company for this? That is something we will, of course, work hard to accomplish. Anything else you want to add, Clas? No. Meanwhile, I found another question here. Starstruck asks, "First you need to finalize mass production. Given that partner negotiations and decision processes takes a very long time, I would guess that you need around 12 months to finalize a deal, or do you have partner discussions that indicate faster decision?" Again, we really cannot guarantee anything. But our aim is given that we are proposed or that we are succeeding with the longer runway here, our aim is to force a decision from some of the commercial partners, maybe even within next six months, by first of all, of course, proving the nematic SLM and then by giving. Let's see. One example could be to eventually hold some sort of an auction or to aggressively force a decision on their side if they keep sitting on the fence. On the other hand, I will say that we have a couple of dialogues where my feeling is that we will not have to wait 12 months, but that is entirely my gut feeling. Again, no guarantees, and whether the answer ultimately is yes or no, of course, I cannot guarantee. It depends on decisions which are out of our hands. Here's another one. Yep. If the SLM plan for the coming months is successful, will you have to constantly provide bigger and bigger prototypes to potential customers, or do you think the nematic SLM in upcoming months should be sufficient for deals? Yeah. I think we have to define it as being sufficient, right? We cannot keep continuing developing the technology on our current financing structure. This is a very good example why that's not viable. As I said before, we'll need to force a decision somehow. Hopefully, one or more interested parties will help in some way to make sure that the technology doesn't sort of die. That would be pretty sad. Another question from Lyndon B. Johnson here. "Can you make any more actions to save money, move to another office, let people go, other actions? You seem to be close to the goal." We are implementing, and have been for quite a while, all the cost-saving activities that we can identify. Fact is that we just moved into a new office last week. The new headquarter for Realfiction is a couple of hundred meters away from the old one, but it's significantly smaller and cheaper. The upcoming investor demonstrations will be hopefully a little bit more crowded because I hope still to see a few of you coming, but the space for that, if we have to do it in the office, will be a lot more cramped. In terms of headcounts of people in the company, we are really at a pain limit. Any more reductions, as we see it, will significantly hurt our progress. I think on the headcount, we cannot really do a lot more. Headcounts is a way to cut cost, but certainly also at a certain level impacts on the tempo. I think we've reached the balance now where we cannot find more efficiency by reducing. And maybe that is also a good clue to the next question, which I just posted. Approximately how many people are currently working actively on the project, including engineers, project managers, and other key roles? We shouldn't forget about our collaboration partners in Asia, that they are also deploying quite a few people on the project like this. Mm-hmm. Yeah, correct. Of course, the people at Goworld are not working 100% of their time on our project, but the amount of people there working with our technology is substantial. So including R&D personnel, managers, project managers, and assembly line people. I don't know. We're talking maybe 20 - 30 people involved in the project. On Realfiction side, I would say around 10 - 12 persons in total, including internal and external consultants. Can you say that, Tor? Sounds right. What is your biggest competitors now? I guess it's who are the biggest competitors of us now and Yeah. Well, it's a competitor, but it's a company, as I'm sure most of you already know, is Leia Inc, an American 3D display company. They have developed different types of optically or lenticular-based solutions. They are licensing their technology to big companies like Samsung, Acer, ASUS, and so forth. As a technology innovation company within the 3D glasses-free display segment, they are of course a competitor. The reason why they're maybe not directly a huge competitor is that their technology is not capable of solving the multi-user feature. Another competitor is Looking Glass Factory. I wouldn't say that they're a big competitor because their solution, again, at least currently, is not really commercially viable. It's a very small number of units at a very high cost. Of course, then there are those big panel makers that are actively working on creating glasses-free 3D displays, whether or not they currently maybe license some solutions or actively trying to create their own. There is a risk, as I also said in my presentation, there is of course a risk that eventually one of those companies will find a solution that we have not seen or that we've not ourself thought about. I would say that any big display company that is actively trying or pursuing 3D space should be considered a competitor and potential customer likewise. All the ones, maybe except Looking Glass Factory, which is quite a small company in comparison, then all the ones mentioned here are equally competitors/potential customers or acquirers of our technology. It's a question from Lyndon B. Johnson. Can you further comment that the loan will crash under SEK 26 million? I think maybe that refers to what you said earlier today in the call, Clas. Yeah, it's got to be. What I said is that the current capture rate includes Fenja in the entire solution, which means a partial refinancing of the loan. If shareholders vote the proposed solution down, we need to have another alternative that can pay out the entire loan. Because if we don't approve the current proposed solution, then we have to repay the full loan some way. So it has to include the loan, it has to include all other costs that are incurred, including the new bridge loan to Tellus, SEK 2 million, other incurred costs during this process, but also the cost of eventually, if that was the idea, to wind down the company. It's not free of charge as well. But SEK 26 million or SEK 28 million would include an extended runway at least to June next year to allow the nematic SLM to be proven. If the idea is to propose an alternative that can pay off the entire loan and then try to sell company as is or the technology as is or IP or whatever and then wind down the rest, then the amount could potentially be lower. But then the huge risk is that the potential buyers will still see the FLC as the dominant risk factor. There is a question here asking for clarification for you, Clas and Peter, whether you will be participating in the rights issue. I guess that the first reply was not fully understood. Yeah. It is up to everyone to decide how to participate. I have said all along through the process, I want to participate. We have tried to figure out how we can participate, and I will not rule out, of course, in any way, that I will also participate in other ways by directly buying. But we have also clearly said from the start that we do not have huge capital on our side. We cannot make a huge difference, but we have tried to come up with the biggest portion of cash we can. And since we do not have savings that are big or anything like that, then the biggest way we could participate was to actively lower our salary for the coming period. There are some questions about IP. Yeah. How secure is your IP family? Yeah. By definition, it is a really tricky question to answer because when is IP totally secure or how secure is it? What I can say is we have already received several issued patents, and that is not 100% security on its own, but at least it is a proof that the invention has undergone examinations, in our case, through several processes and has not been found or has been proven new or marked as new and innovative. We have had no obligations or, what do you say? We have not been opposed by any companies out there saying that our IP or any of our patents are overruling their ideas, which could be one thing that you could quite quickly account if you did not have an original idea patented. And we are constantly expanding where we see necessary on the IP to continuously strengthen the IP portfolio. We do have quite a good feeling that we have original and solid IP around the DPT technology. Yeah, I think that is the best answer I can give. Yeah. Our patent attorneys are quite invested as well and eagerly interested in the technology and the company and feel likewise frustrated like you guys and us, and ask the same question, "Why haven't they bought you already?" Because this is a brilliant technology and they are quite good at technology and especially display technology, and they have never seen anything like it. They believe in the IP as well. Yes, I think it is now 10 min past 10:00, and we have replied to many questions. Should we wind down the meeting at this point, Clas? Yeah. I think it is best to do so. Thank you all. Maybe we should welcome people. We should welcome our shareholders to actually send additional comments, additional questions to us. If there is something which we have not addressed today during the call, please write us. Please reach out. We welcome that, and we welcome the dialogue. Thank you all for taking the time this evening to join us and to give us questions. This recording will be available on the website as soon as possible. Please feel free to write us questions if you feel that we did not answer sufficiently. Thank you all. Hope to see you soon. Thank you. Bye.