It isn't the Tech that makes ADO Uninvestible

Without action this technology is not going into full cell service.

Investors have reviewed 3 significant Investment Proposals/CR's for ADO in the past 2+ years.
The electrode technology is promising or even compelling. The tech is probably ahead of some peers but needs comprehensive integration in a full cell to assess the electrode swelling and capacity fading challenges of Si and compatibility with electrolyte, separator and cell pack. FULL CELL in service conditions and trials.

Successful peers that have grown market cap significantly in the past 2 years could not support ADO's current incomprehensible structure. Seriously out of whack with the Industry!
This would be the common conclusion for the pool of investors who were approached in the past 2 years regardless of how good the tech is.
- A heavy Board that is not fit for purpose. 6/7 Directors with not a single director who has demonstrated sector experience, electrochemistry know how, battery research, authored relevant papers or recognised in any relevant battery industry association. Is this Board selection incompetence or just a lack of interest in this Industry?
- The webcast presentation last quarter by the Head of tech and a new hire in Germany was illuminating. These 2 individuals are clearly the necessary Joint CTO/CEO and Chief Commercial Officer (CCO). International peer companies who are also trying to attract capital would make this change immediately.
- In terms of of questionable overhead, looking at the website, the CEO, COO and CMO have zero pedigree in the Battery or applicable electrochemical industry. They are probably competent in another businesses but the board has reneged on its core governance and director's duties in not creating a structure and appointing Executives who are capable and competent. The company is not delivering revenue, has destroyed 2/3rd value in 2 years and has top 3 Execs and 6 Board members - these top 9 top leaders have no demonstrable battery industry experience. Look at any competition who are growing profitably and they could not justify this non value add. 3 SKU's, no revenue and no marketing yet a CMO. Little to no operations yet a COO.

The opportunity to move in, spill the the board to make these changes is no longer viable for sophisticated investors and a terminal 1 cent stock. After 2 years it's now not material enough for any investment bank.
So it's up to significant shareholders.
Good luck.
Lets hope the changes come soon to give the technology a fighting chance.
Only interest is to see the tech get its opportunity in the market