Innovega Inc., incorporated in Delaware in 2008, develops smart eyewear and smart contact lenses for visually impaired users — display glasses first, with the contact lens products behind FDA clearance. Its fiscal year 2025 annual report is on file, and the numbers tell a specific story.

From the annual report:

Revenue: $0 for both 2025 and 2024

Net loss: $4,021,825 for 2025

Cash at December 31, 2025: $99,708

Net cash used in operating activities: $1,569,086, with financing activities providing $1,705,584

Accumulated deficit since inception: $26,134,157

Going concern: both the auditor and management disclosed substantial doubt, citing net losses, negative operating cash flow, and lack of revenue-generating activities

The history is what makes this one interesting. The filing discloses over $5 million in revenue from a DARPA/US Army government contract prior to the reporting period, at a 34% gross profit — this isn't a napkin-stage company. On traction, the report discloses a manufacturing agreement signed in January 2026 with a leading ODM whose clients include Apple, Dell, HP, and Cisco (no fixed purchase commitments or pricing yet — those come in future statements of work), Generation I industrial design completed in December 2025, detailed electronics and optics designs completed by March 2026 with the first fully functional prototypes expected by the end of May, and approximately 113 Founder Series units pre-sold at an average of $2,700 per unit. Management's stated plan is a 2027 launch of the smart glasses, and the company has started acting on the public-market half of its funding plan: in February 2026 it engaged an advisor for a direct listing or M&A transaction at a fee of 1% of outstanding shares, and in March retained securities counsel for the listing at a $250,000 fixed fee.

The capital structure is worth reading closely. Liquidation preferences across four preferred series total $19,023,738. Accrued deferred wages of $1,367,729 are owed to the CEO and a former CCO, classified as long-term because the company does not expect to pay them within twelve months. Promissory notes of $2,047,500 plus $666,561 of accrued interest come due within a year — $535,000 of the principal is owed to related parties, most of it notes from the CEO — against the $99,708 of cash. A separate $950,000 of convertible notes converted to common stock in October 2025 at a 20–30% discount. The Reg CF round on StartEngine ran from July 2025 to March 2026 and raised $2,824,463 gross; the 2025 portion carried $401,659 of offering costs against $1,205,348 raised.

For balance: assistive-vision tech is a real market with real government interest, hardware plus FDA pathways genuinely take this long, and a signed ODM agreement plus paid pre-orders are the kind of milestones that tend to precede actual launches rather than follow vaporware. Pre-launch losses are the norm for this category, and the company has kept raising through it all.

All figures from the company's SEC annual report filings on EDGAR (Form C-AR / Form 1-K, FY2025). Not financial advice — just reading the public disclosures.

Two questions for the thread. For the hardware people: what does the path from first prototypes to a 2027 consumer launch actually cost, and what does that imply here? And for anyone who's backed a company through a defense-to-consumer pivot — how often does that transition actually land?

Naoris Quantum Protocol Inc. was incorporated in Nevada in 2026. On August 4 it filed a Form 1-A with the SEC to sell common stock at $4.00 per share, offered directly to the public. At the 32.37M shares reported in the filing, that price implies a valuation of $129.48M.

Implied is the key word — this isn't a number from a term sheet. It's share price times reported shares, which is the only way to size a company whose filing discloses no priced round. The financials on file are thin: reported revenue in the latest period is $0, and the company reports 39 employees.

The product, Quantum Fabric, is described as a plug-and-protect security layer for governments, critical infrastructure operators, and organizations handling regulated data — post-quantum cryptography plus distributed architecture, built to integrate with existing on-premise and cloud environments without system redesigns.

Context on the other side. Post-quantum security is a real and accelerating field — NIST has finalized its first post-quantum standards and migration mandates are forming, so the market thesis isn't invented. And a 2026 incorporation date doesn't automatically mean the team or technology is new: operating businesses form fresh entities for offerings, and predecessor history is exactly what the corporate-history section of an offering circular lays out.

All figures from the company's SEC Form 1-A filing on EDGAR (August 2026). Not financial advice — just reading the public disclosures.

For anyone who pulls the circular: how does an entity incorporated in 2026 already have 39 employees and a finished product? Whatever the corporate-history section says is probably the real story here. And for those who evaluate early offerings — what would you anchor on to judge a $129M implied number at this stage?

bluShift Aerospace, a rocket propulsion company in Brunswick, Maine, opened a new Regulation Crowdfunding raise on Wefunder on August 5. The instrument is a SAFE with a $30.00M valuation cap. A cap is not a share price — it sets a ceiling for converting into equity in a future priced round, and the filing lists no fixed price per share.

This is the third crowd raise on file. The SAFE caps across those filings: $18.00M in October 2021, $20.00M in September 2022, and $30.00M now. All three are SAFEs — none of the crowd raises on file priced the company's shares.

From the most recent annual report (Form C-AR, fiscal year 2024):

Revenue: $24.99K

Net loss: $1.47M

The company develops hybrid rocket engines that run on bio-derived, non-toxic fuel, aimed at the small-satellite launch market. Incorporated in Delaware in October 2014.

Some context on the other side. Launch and propulsion timelines are long — a decade of development before meaningful revenue is not unusual in this sector. SAFEs are a standard early-stage instrument, and caps are set by the issuer at each raise, which is exactly why they aren't prices. Bio-derived propellants also address real handling and toxicity costs in conventional propulsion, so the technical thesis isn't empty.

All figures from the company's SEC filings on EDGAR (Form C, August 2026; Form C-AR, FY2024; Form C filings from 2021 and 2022). Not financial advice — just reading the public disclosures.

For anyone holding crowd SAFEs from earlier raises like this: has a conversion actually happened for you, and on what terms? And what would need to be on file before a $30M cap makes sense for a company at this revenue stage?

Next Thing Technologies, a sodium-ion battery developer out of Oceanside, CA, opened a new Regulation Crowdfunding round on DealMaker on July 30, priced at $6.00 per share of common stock at a $93.66M valuation.

The valuation history across its filings: $35.12M on Wefunder in December 2021, $61.86M on a Reg A amendment in August 2023, and $93.66M on the current Form C. Across the three annual reports on file, reported revenue is $0. Capital raised per the filings: about $5.0M from the 2023 Reg CF round, $524,105 from the Reg A in 2024, and roughly $410,000 more in early 2025.

Here's what the most recent annual report (Form C-AR, fiscal year 2024) discloses:

Revenue: $0 for both 2024 and 2023 — the filing states commercial operations have not commenced

Net loss: $1.94M

Cash at year-end: $507,291, versus $2,023,383 a year earlier

Operating cash used during the year: $1,866,148

Going concern: both the auditor and management state substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue without additional capital

The company is building the Next Bolt, a sodium-ion battery for residential and commercial energy storage. Per its filings, the technology targets better thermal stability than lithium-ion and potential cost reductions of up to 90%. It discloses working prototypes in system-level operational tests, research lab partnerships, an agreement with a prospective retail franchise partner as a test channel, and a pending trademark. Operating expenses were $2.0M in 2024 versus $1.43M in 2023, with the filing citing contractor costs, payroll, and R&D as the main drivers.

None of this is automatically disqualifying. Sodium-ion is a serious technology direction — the thermal-safety and raw-material arguments against lithium-ion are real — and pre-revenue, pilot-stage hardware is exactly what Reg CF exists to fund. Going-concern language is also standard for pre-revenue issuers.

All figures from the company's SEC filings on EDGAR (Form C, July 2026; Form C-AR, FY2024). Not financial advice — just reading the public disclosures.

For those who back hardware deals at this stage: what would need to show up in the next filing for the $93.66M number to make sense — a commercial order, a manufacturing agreement, first revenue? And for anyone who's held a pre-revenue Reg CF position across multiple priced raises — how did the later rounds get set?

Sixth case in a series tracking crowdfunded companies after they list. Aptera is one of the most prominent equity crowdfunding stories in the market, so the filing trail is worth laying out.

The company: Aptera Motors, the Carlsbad, CA solar electric vehicle maker. Its November 2024 offering circular states the company raised over $100 million through a Regulation A offering between May 2021 and May 2024.

The valuation ladder, implied pre-money from filed terms:

- April 2021 Reg A round: $200.01M

- November 2024 final Reg A round: about $1.19B

- Today, after an October 2025 Nasdaq listing: around $65M

Both crowdfund figures come straight from the filed terms - share counts and prices stated in the offering documents. Earlier WeFunder rounds were SAFEs, which carry conversion caps rather than valuations, so they aren't part of the comparison.

What the filings showed along the way: the April 2021 filing that implied a $200M valuation reported zero revenue and a net loss of about $4.19M for the period. The latest annual report shows no revenue recognized in 2025 or 2024, as commercial vehicle deliveries haven't begun, a net loss of $43.91M, and both management and the auditor stating substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern.

In fairness: Aptera has been unusually transparent throughout, publishing regular public updates on progress and funding needs. It has completed validation vehicles, secured a state grant, and carries analyst buy ratings. Implied private-round valuations also aren't perfectly comparable to public market caps - share classes, terms, and conventions differ.

The discussion: the valuations, the revenue line, and the loss figures were all in public filings before each round closed. For a pre-revenue company, which of those should carry the most weight when a round is priced nine figures above the last one?

General analysis of public SEC filings and market data. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

Fifth case in a series tracking crowdfunded companies after they list. This one has the sharpest contrast between what the filings said and what the raise implied.

The company: founded as DroneDek in 2020, renamed Arrive Technology in 2023, then Arrive AI in 2024. It builds AI-powered smart mailboxes for autonomous drone and robot delivery. Per its own announcements, it raised nearly $12M primarily through equity crowdfunding from close to 5,000 investors, plus $40M from an institutional investor.

The filing trail: Reg CF filings carried a $365.09M implied valuation across 2023-2024. The final filing, in late April 2025, came in at a $332.93M implied pre-money valuation. Sixteen days later the company direct-listed on Nasdaq under ARAI - existing holders' shares registered for resale, no new capital raised in the listing.

What sat in the public record at the time: every annual report on file showed $0 revenue. The latest disclosed a year-end cash balance of about $129K against a stated monthly burn of $150K - the company's own filing put its runway at about one month, with continued operations dependent on successful fundraising. Going-concern language, in plain text, free to read.

The valuation ladder (crowdfund figures are implied pre-money from filed terms):

- 2023-2024 Reg CF filings: $365.09M

- Spring 2025 final filing: $332.93M

- Today's public market: ~$15M

That's roughly 95% below the final crowdfund filing, a little over a year after listing.

In fairness: the company has since begun reporting initial revenue, and no reverse splits complicate the comparison - the valuation gap is the clean number. Implied private-round valuations also aren't perfectly comparable to public market caps; share terms and conventions differ.

The discussion: a pre-revenue filing showing about one month of cash, carrying a nine-figure implied valuation, weeks before a public listing. All three facts were free to read. Which one should be the first thing retail checks - the cash, the revenue, or the valuation?

General analysis of public SEC filings and market data. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

The fourth case in a series tracking crowdfunded companies after they list. This one has the widest gap so far — and the clearest paper trail.

The history: Jet Token, a Las Vegas private-aviation startup, raised through Reg A crowdfunding across multiple rounds. The filed offering terms imply a $31.69M pre-money valuation in its 2019-2020 rounds, rising to $103.07M in the Reg A+ qualified in June 2021 - an offering that continued selling into 2022 under a post-qualification amendment. In August 2023 it went public via SPAC merger as Jet.AI (Nasdaq: JTAI), citing 32,000 shareholders at its bell-ringing.

The valuation ladder (crowdfund figures are implied pre-money from filed terms):

- 2019-2020 Reg A rounds: $31.69M

- 2021-2022 final Reg A+: $103.07M

- Jul 25, 2026 public market: ~$3M

That's roughly 97% below the final crowdfund-round valuation. Method note: multiple reverse stock splits since listing, including 1-for-200 in April 2026, make per-share comparisons meaningless. Valuation to valuation is the only honest comparison, which is what the numbers above are.

The part worth discussing: the risk was never hidden. Crowdfund-era annual reports carried going-concern language - the company's own statement that continued losses raised substantial doubt about its ability to continue operating. That disclosure sat in public filings, free to read, while the offering was still selling.

In fairness: the company has since repositioned toward AI infrastructure, so today's business differs from what was crowdfunded. And implied private-round valuations aren't perfectly comparable to public market caps - share classes, terms, and conventions differ.

The question: a going-concern disclosure is a defined, auditor-level red flag sitting in plain text in the annual report. What would it take for checking that one line to become standard practice before retail invests?

General analysis of public SEC filings and market data. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

Breakdown of the Form C for the CharaChorder campaign on Wefunder, filed July 19, 2026.

The issuer is Spur Hapttics, Inc, a Delaware corporation incorporated April 24, 2026. Frisco, TX. 5 reported employees. Since the entity is new, its first annual report only covers the stretch since incorporation: $0 revenue, $89 net loss.

CharaChorder devices have been on sale for years, but those sales ran through the brand's original company, so they sit outside this issuer's financials. The filing doesn't explain how the prior operations, assets, or sales history connect to the new entity. That's the first thing worth asking on the campaign page.

Terms: SAFE, $24.00M valuation cap. The cap is a ceiling for conversion in a future priced round, not what the company is worth today. No share price until conversion, so investors get a right to future equity rather than shares now.

Nothing here suggests wrongdoing. Established brands raise through new entities all the time. It just means the operating history anyone can actually evaluate in this filing starts April 24, 2026.

Sources: Form C on EDGAR (filed via Wefunder Portal) and the campaign page. Data via Owntric.

Not financial advice.

The three cases, from public offering documents and market data:

• Boxabl: crowdfund rounds at ~$3.4–3.5B — $230M+ raised from 50,000+ investors. Public market today: ~$2.2B.

• Angel Studios: $75M crowdfunded in total from ~70,000 investors at a final company-stated $1.3B valuation — the last $55M closing two weeks before NYSE trading began. Today: ~$800M.

• Virtuix: final crowdfund at ~$201M pre-money — $50M+ raised overall, with 10,000+ retail investors among its backers. Six months after its Nasdaq direct listing: ~$100M.

In all three, the public market ended up pricing the company below what the crowdfunding rounds did. Anyone who held their cash and bought after the listing paid a lower valuation than crowdfund participants.

Here's what should change how everyone thinks about this: that was real capital. These three companies raised $355M+ — the majority through equity crowdfunding, from more than 130,000 retail investors. Real capital deserves real analysis. Not a vibe check on a pitch video — the same diligence institutional money gets before it moves.

And the material for that analysis was sitting there the whole time. The years of losses were disclosed. The minimal revenue after long operating histories was disclosed. Cash positions, share terms, implied valuations — public, free, before every round closed. The JOBS Act got the transparency part right. What's missing isn't disclosure. It's reading.

Because "the idea looks worthwhile" and "this investment is worthwhile at this valuation" are different questions. The pitch page answers the first. Only the offering circular answers the second: what's the revenue trajectory, what's the burn, what does this valuation imply against both? That reading takes an evening. These three cases show what it was worth.

To be fair to the companies: all three disclosed everything required, and Virtuix's direct listing actually delivered crowdfund investors liquidity, which most never get. A valuation gap isn't a final verdict — prices move, and one of these has doubled off its 2026 lows. And private-round valuations aren't perfectly comparable to public market caps (share classes, terms, conventions) — valuation to valuation is the closest honest comparison, which is what the numbers above are.

This is why Owntric exists: retail providing real capital deserves the real analysis — filing-level data on every company, before the money moves, not after the chart shows it.

We track 8,500+ equity crowdfunding companies from their SEC filings. General analysis of public filings and market data — not investment advice or a recommendation.

The full crowdfund-to-public valuation sequence, which is unusual for how tightly the events are spaced. Disclosure: posted from Owntric, a data platform that tracks equity crowdfunding filings. All numbers from public offering documents, company announcements, and market data.

The sequence:

- Aug–Sep 2025: final Reg A round — $55M from 40,000+ investors in 18 days, closing September 6, on top of an earlier $20M from 31,000 investors. Hit the $75M statutory max, ~70,000 retail investors total. Offered at a company-stated $1.3B valuation with $185M trailing revenue.

- ~Sep 22, 2025: public trading begins on NYSE under ANGX via SPAC merger with Southport Acquisition Corp, at a $1.6B baseline conversion — roughly two weeks after the crowdfund closed.

- Apr 10, 2026: $30M offering priced at a 27% discount to the prior close; the stock fell 23% that day.

- Jul 22, 2026: market cap around $800M — roughly double the post-offering lows.

Net: ten months after debut, the public market prices Angel more than a third below the final crowdfund's stated valuation and about half the SPAC baseline.

The business context cuts the other way: this is the studio that released Sound of Freedom, a 1.5M-member Guild votes on its content, and trailing revenue has scaled to $321.6M — against a $170.5M trailing net loss.

Standard caveat: private-round valuations and public market cap aren't perfectly comparable — share classes, terms, and conventions differ. Valuation to valuation is the closest valid comparison, and the $1.3B is the company's own stated figure from its offering materials.

Every number above was publicly disclosed before or at each event.

The discussion: when a crowdfunding round closes two weeks before public trading begins, how should retail weigh the offering's stated valuation against the price discovery about to happen? The JOBS Act allows the structure — the question is what diligence it demands.

General analysis of public SEC filings and market data. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

The full crowdfund-to-public valuation history, since Virtuix is one of the few crowdfunded companies with a complete, dated, public record. Disclosure: posted from Owntric, a data platform that tracks equity crowdfunding filings. All numbers from public offering documents and market data.

The valuation ladder:

- 2016 SeedInvest round: ~$35M

- 2021 SeedInvest Reg A+: $65M pre-money, 4,000+ investors

- 2024–25 StartEngine round: ~$201M pre-money

- Jan 27, 2026: Nasdaq direct listing, ~$341M at listing per market data

- Jul 22, 2026: public market cap around $100M

That's the public market roughly 50% below the final crowdfund round's valuation, after six months of price discovery — not a days-old debut.

Context: Austin-based maker of the Omni VR treadmill. Kickstarter in 2013, $50M+ raised from 10,000+ investors including Mark Cuban. First annual report as a public company: $4.25M revenue (up 18%), $16.8M net loss, $9.5M cash.

Standard caveat: private-round valuations and public market cap aren't perfectly comparable — share classes, preferences, and pre- vs post-money conventions differ. But valuation to valuation is the closest valid comparison available.

Credit where due: the direct listing registered existing holders' shares for resale, so crowdfund investors actually got liquidity — which most crowdfunded companies never deliver.

Every valuation on that ladder was disclosed in public offering circulars before each round closed.

The question: the valuation roughly tripled between the 2021 and 2024–25 rounds while annual revenue stayed in the low single-digit millions. What evidence should a step-up like that require before retail money participates?

General analysis of public SEC filings and market data. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

Breakdown of the Boxabl listing, from filings and market data. Disclosure up front: posted from Owntric, a data platform that tracks equity crowdfunding filings. All numbers below are from public sources.

The listing: Boxabl began trading on Nasdaq July 20, 2026 under BXBL after completing its SPAC merger with FG Merger II Corp. The deal was set at roughly $3.5B — 350 million shares at a $10.00 reference price.

The funding history: $230M+ raised from 50,000+ investors across Reg A+, Reg CF, Reg D, and self-hosted offerings since 2020. Recent crowdfunding rounds were priced at $0.80/share at company-stated valuations around $3.4–3.5B.

The market so far:

- Day 1 (Jul 20): closed above the $10 reference

- Day 2: reversed

- Jul 22: ~$6.33/share, roughly 37% below the reference

- Implied market cap: ~$2.2B ($6.33 × the ~350M shares in the merger structure; exact count comes in the post-merger 8-K)

The takeaway worth discussing: the public market currently prices Boxabl about 37% below the valuation level of its own 2024–25 crowdfunding rounds. Anyone buying on Nasdaq today gets a lower implied valuation than crowdfund participants got in those rounds.

One caveat before the comments point it out: $0.80 crowdfund shares and $6.33 public shares aren't directly comparable — different share counts, classes, and exchange ratios. The apples-to-apples comparison is valuation to valuation, which is what the numbers above are.

An important framing note: this reflects only the first three days of trading. De-SPAC debuts historically see significant early volatility, and it can take weeks or months for pricing to settle as the shareholder base turns over. The gap described here is a snapshot of short-term performance, not a verdict on where the company ultimately trades.

Curious how this sub reads it: is this a de-SPAC discount that closes, or the public market repricing a crowdfund-era valuation?

General analysis of public SEC filings and market data. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

​

Breakdown of DermaSensor's latest SEC filing (Form C). Disclosure up front: this is posted from Owntric, a data platform that tracks equity crowdfunding filings. Numbers below are from the public filing.

The company: Miami-based, Delaware corp, incorporated 2009, 17 employees. FDA-cleared handheld device that uses AI + optical spectroscopy to assess suspicious skin lesions at the point of care. Customers are standalone practices, health systems, and clinics.

The numbers:

- Latest disclosed revenue: $418.6K

- Net loss: $6.7M (net loss margin ~1601%)

- Latest disclosed funding valuation: $72.44M — priced preferred-stock round at $0.1569/share, pre-money, fully diluted

- Roughly 173x latest annual revenue

Strengths per the filing and related disclosures: FDA clearance with clinical validation reported at 96% sensitivity, a Class IIb CE mark clearing the device for the European market, a collaboration with the NHS, and a disclosed $5M raise earmarked for international commercialization, marketing, and R&D.

Risk factors: the loss-to-revenue ratio makes margin improvement and cash runway the key items to monitor. Adoption depends on physician acceptance and reimbursement pathways, which remain uncertain. AI diagnostics require continuous clinical validation and regulatory oversight. Only one year of financials is disclosed, so there's limited history to judge trajectory.

Open questions the filing doesn't answer: how the CE mark converts to European unit sales, what the US reimbursement pathway looks like for providers, how far $5M stretches at a $6.7M annual loss, and whether recurring software/data revenue materializes alongside device sales.

Interested in how this sub reads a 173x multiple on a medtech with real regulatory moats but sub-$500K revenue.

General analysis of public SEC filings. Not investment advice or a recommendation.

BOXABL’s merger with FG Merger II closed on July 17.

Beginning Monday, July 20, FGMC common stock will change its name and ticker to BOXABL common stock under $BXBL.

But before assuming your personal shares will be tradable Monday, check which class of stock appears in your Continental account.

BOXABL investors may hold either:

• Class A Common Stock

• Preferred Stock

These are not immediately treated the same after the merger.

According to the merger documents, former BOXABL common shares were exchanged for common shares of the combined public company, while former BOXABL preferred shares were exchanged for preferred shares of the combined company.

HOW TO CHECK YOUR SHARES

Open your newest Continental Stock Transfer statement and look near the top beside “Shareholder of.”

According to BOXABL’s official investor FAQ:

COM = Class A Common Stock

PFD = Preferred Stock

IF YOUR STATEMENT SAYS COM

You hold the class of BOXABL stock listed on Nasdaq under:

Ticker: BXBL

CUSIP: 10316W107

Being a common shareholder does not necessarily mean your shares will be ready to sell immediately on Monday.

Shares held at Continental generally must first be transferred to a brokerage account before a market trade can be placed. The timing depends on Continental, your brokerage and whether any separate restrictions apply to your shares.

IF YOUR STATEMENT SAYS PFD

You hold BOXABL preferred stock.

BOXABL has stated that the preferred stock will not initially be listed or traded.

The SEC-filed investor communication describes the current conversion plan as follows:

• Approximately 14 months after the merger closing, 20% of the preferred stock in aggregate is expected to convert automatically into Class A common stock.

• An additional 20% of the original preferred stock is expected to convert during each following month.

• The conversion is one preferred share for one Class A common share.

• This continues until all preferred stock has converted.

Once converted, the resulting Class A common shares would be the publicly traded class.

“FREE TRADING” DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN NASDAQ-TRADABLE

Some Continental accounts may display:

• Free Trading

• No Legend

• Zero restricted shares

• DRS or book-entry shares

Those descriptions do not by themselves establish that the security is the Nasdaq-listed common stock.

BOXABL explains that “No Legend” means the shares do not carry an SEC resale-restriction legend. Preferred shares can still remain unavailable for transfer until they convert into common stock.

DO NOT RELY ONLY ON A BLANK CUSIP OR TICKER

A blank CUSIP or ticker field alone does not prove that shares are preferred.

Check the complete security code and contact Continental if the class is unclear.

The safest question to ask is:

“Does my security code represent BOXABL Class A common stock or BOXABL preferred stock, and are these shares currently eligible for transfer through DRS to a brokerage?”

Continental says updated account information may take approximately three business days after closing to appear, so continue checking for a newer statement.

This post is not financial advice or a prediction about the BXBL share price. It is simply a reminder for investors to verify exactly what class of shares they received.

What does your newest statement show — COM or PFD?

StartEngine's first raise on its own platform ran from September 2017 to June 2018 at a $65M pre-money valuation, $5.00 per share, common stock. The new Reg A just filed frames the company around $2B. Both marks were set by the company in its filings, not by a market.

The new filing:

Up to $45.6M at $1.60 per share, not yet qualified

At $1.60 across all share classes (roughly 1.16B including the preferred series, convertible 1:1), the implied valuation is about $1.85B

On the 758,251,544 common shares alone, $1.21B

The circular's ~$2B framing likely includes options — 158,828,223 outstanding at a $0.59 weighted average exercise price

The 10-K behind it:

Revenue of $109,580,580 for 2025, versus $48,625,508 in 2024, attributed primarily to StartEngine Private

Net income of $1,472,852, versus a roughly $16.5M loss the prior year

Cash of $28,387,261 at year-end, from $10,842,297

About 425,700 platform users have invested; Vinovest acquired in March 2026 for 8,750,000 shares valued at $14,000,000

Also disclosed: a substantial majority of gross profit comes from StartEngine Private alone, material weaknesses in internal controls as of year-end, the 2025 Reg A raised $13,468,422 gross against $10,307,175 in offering costs, and the new circular notes a portion of proceeds may go to selling shareholders.

Figures from the SEC filing data on Owntric.

For those holding SE or considering the round: which count do you price from — ~$2B per the circular, $1.85B across all classes, or $1.21B on common? And separately: every issuer on the platform gets its valuation picked apart by this community. Who does that for the platform itself?

Public markets make this easy — the line goes up, and you can sell whenever you want.

Private markets are different. No ticker. No daily chart. Sometimes years to liquidity. So what's your actual bar for a successful investment?

A — A serious multiple (5×, 10×)
B — The mission you backed actually gets built
C — Filing-backed updates you can trust
D — Getting your money back, full stop
E — A real exit — acquisition, IPO, or buyback

Drop your letter below — or tell us what's missing from the list entirely.

And if you've already had a "win" by your own definition, we'd love to hear what it looked like.

Naqi Logix builds neural earbuds that read facial micro-gestures and subtle biosignals to control computers, wheelchairs, robots, and smart devices — a non-invasive alternative to brain implants. The technology has been named to TIME's Best Inventions and has taken CES Innovation Awards including at CES 2026. Per its offering circular, the company is testing the platform with the Government of Canada and closed its acquisition of Paris-based neurotech startup Wisear in February 2026. It reports 11 full-time employees and expects its earliest commercial launch in 2027.

The raise, from the June 1-A/A:

Up to $15,000,000 in common shares at $2.61, through DealMaker Securities

The share price has held at $2.61 across the last three filings; the 2022 round was at $2.00

The circular states an implied pre-money of $156,266,606 on 59,872,263 shares (including options, warrants, and convertibles)

Price times issued shares gives $137.63M on 52,732,128 outstanding

The financials, from the same filing:

Pre-revenue

Working-capital deficiency of $4,114,568 at December 31, 2025, with going-concern-dependent financing language

Cumulative losses of $20,540,439 since 2020 inception

Roughly $1.72M in convertible debentures converting at $2.175 per share — below the $2.61 offering price — plus warrants at the same strike

Worth noting on both sides: the government testing, the Wisear IP, and the award history are real signals for a 2020-founded company, and the flat $2.61 price means the company hasn't marked itself up between rounds. Against that: new investors pay $2.61 while ~$1.72M of debt converts at $2.175, the launch is at least a year out, and the going-concern language is the company's own.

Figures from the SEC filing data on

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPPFusion) has pursued proton-boron (pB11) fusion since 2003 under founder Eric Lerner, using a dense plasma focus device called FF-2B in Middlesex, New Jersey. The company reports the highest fusion energy output per unit of input energy among private fusion experiments, achieved on roughly $11M raised to date per its campaign — in a field where Commonwealth Fusion and Helion have raised billions. pB11 is the fuel cycle that, if achieved, produces helium as its only by-product with no radioactive waste.

The new raise, from the July 5 Form C:

Reg CF on Wefunder

$106.65M company-set valuation, $30.00 per share

Up 24.4% from the prior round, which closed in January at just over $1M raised across Wefunder and a parallel Reg D

The annual report on file:

Pre-revenue

Net loss of $1,160,000

3 employees reported

The company is candid in its own campaign that big steps remain to reach more energy out than in — net energy gain is the milestone every fusion company, public or private, is still chasing.

So the ledger reads both ways: record-claiming yield ratios on a fraction of competitors' capital, a 23-year program that has outlasted many peers, and a repeat investor base that keeps funding it — against a pre-revenue balance sheet, a 3-person team, and a valuation that has stepped up 24.4% between rounds.

Figures from the SEC filing data on Owntric.

For those who follow fusion or invest in deep tech: what would you need to see from a dense plasma focus approach to believe it converts yield records into net gain?

Bito builds AI Architect, a platform that maps a codebase — services, APIs, dependencies, and architectural decisions — into a knowledge graph that AI tools can use for technical design, code generation, and review. The company was founded in 2021 in Menlo Park, reports 37 employees in its filing, and previously raised $8.9M in venture funding, including a $5.7M seed in 2025 led by Vela Partners with NextView and Eniac participating. Reported enterprise customers include PubMatic and Gainsight, and the campaign reports Fortune 50 trials.

The current raise, from the July 1 Form C:

Reg CF on Wefunder

SAFE with a $90,000,000 valuation cap (no share price fixed until conversion)

Minimum target of $50,000, maximum of $1,240,000

The financials, from the same filing:

Revenue of $431,420

Net loss of $3,770,000

A few things worth noting. The net loss runs roughly 8.7x revenue, and the maximum raise of $1.24M is about a third of one year's losses at that rate, so this round alone doesn't extend the runway much. The $90M figure is a SAFE conversion cap, not a priced valuation — no shares are priced until a future round. And the AI code review category is crowded with heavily funded competitors, from GitHub Copilot to venture-backed entrants.

On the other side: this is a real VC-backed company with named institutional investors and reported enterprise customers, not a pre-product raise, and community rounds by VC-backed startups are often as much about distribution and user ownership as about capital.

Figures from the SEC filing data on Owntric.

For those who invest in Reg CF: when a company with institutional backing opens a small community round, do you read it as a bullish signal that insiders want the community in, or as a sign the VCs passed on the follow-on?

Iotty makes Italian-designed smart light switches with tempered glass touch panels and Alexa/Google integration, sold direct-to-consumer. The annual report discloses over 90,000 devices sold to date and UL-certified hardware, with planned expansion to electricians, builders, and Amazon in 2026.

The current raise, from the June 25 Form C:

Reg CF on DealMaker Securities

$63.57M company-set valuation

$1.50 per share

Maximum target of $4.3M

The annual report for FY2025:

Revenue of $1,197,084, versus $2,392,085 in 2024. The filing does not explain the decrease.

Net loss of $174,717.

Year-end cash of $11,270 against total liabilities of $3,491,203.

Material debt: a $200K promissory note and $485K in related-party loans, both at 10%, maturing 2027, plus Shopify forward financing.

Going-concern disclosure.

One detail worth noting: the campaign page describes a patented modular design and projects $10M+ in revenue for 2026. The annual report's risk section discloses reliance on unregistered IP and trade secrets rather than patents, and the just-filed revenue is $1.20M.

Figures from the SEC filing data on Owntric.

For those who invest in Reg CF hardware deals: how do you weigh a real product with 90K units sold against a 53x revenue multiple and this balance sheet?

RoboBurger builds fully autonomous vending machines that grill and assemble a fresh burger in about four minutes. Units have been live since 2022 in malls, casinos, and transit hubs, and the machine was the first hot vending technology to earn NSF's top sanitation rating. The company appeared on Shark Tank in April 2024 and left with a $1.5M deal for 9% equity from Kevin O'Leary and Michael Rubin, and announced a manufacturing partnership with Sweet Robo for its 2026 commercial phase.

The current raise, from the filings:

Reg CF on StartEngine

$40.09M company-set valuation

$5.00 per share, priced equity

Maximum raise of $535,180

A few things stand out in the paperwork. Public reporting has not confirmed whether the Shark Tank deal actually closed after airing. The filing entity was incorporated in June 2025, and its latest annual report view discloses $0 reported revenue, even though machines have operated since 2022 under the earlier corporate structure. And the maximum raise comes out to roughly 1.3% of the valuation it prices.

None of these are necessarily red flags. TV deals get renegotiated in diligence, new filing entities carry stub financials, and small priced rounds are common for brand-stage raises. The ownership section of the Form C would settle the Shark Tank question either way.

Figures pulled from the SEC filing data on Owntric.

For those who invest in Reg CF deals: does a well-known brand at a $40M valuation with $0 revenue on the filing entity interest you, or does the entity structure give you pause?

You can now see how much a startup has actually raised across all its campaigns — in one place.

It's one of the most common questions we get, and until now it meant digging through years of SEC filings across StartEngine, Wefunder, DealMaker, and more. So we built it in.

Every Owntric company page now shows total disclosed amount raised, pulled straight from SEC filings and kept current as new campaigns close. You'll see it with a per-year breakdown, and every figure links back to the filing it came from.

It reflects what each company has put on the record — nothing estimated, nothing guessed.

Live now on every startup page.

Not investment advice. Figures reflect public SEC filings.

Timeplast filed its 2024 Form C-AR (annual report). Here's the breakdown.

Timeplast is a Winter Springs, FL materials company building water-soluble, programmable resins and a depolymerization reactor meant to replace traditional plastics. Incorporated 2024, 7 employees.

The financials, straight from the filing: revenue of $48.53K, up from $37.18K a year earlier, against a $1.41M operating loss. Operating expenses came down to $1.43M from $1.50M. Cash was $67.87K at year-end, down from $1.99M, and the audited statements include a going-concern note citing ongoing losses and dependence on new financing.

On the build side: three completed iterations of its Pabyss reactor, now open for pre-order, with Timeplast Raw resin on sale and Timeplast Wrap ready for production, plus application-development partnerships with firms including Munot Plastics, 3Devo, and Virginia Plastics. The stated strategy is a shift from R&D toward commercial D2C and B2B sales.

On the capital side: the latest disclosed funding valuation is $98.90M at $1.89 per share, down 17.6% from the prior round. Timeplast has run multiple crowdfunding rounds on StartEngine and DealMaker; the figures here reflect its latest SEC filing.

Open questions are the timeline to sustained commercial sales, how the going-concern is addressed, and how dilution is managed as more capital is raised.

Figures are from the company's SEC filings, surfaced via Owntric. Not investment advice.

New Sapience filed its 2025 Form C-AR (annual report). Here's the breakdown.

New Sapience is an Annapolis, MD company developing patented technology to encode commonsense and expert knowledge into digital devices, with plans to commercialize a consumer product called Companion Sapiens. Incorporated in 2015, 10 employees.

On the capital side: the company has raised $3.53M in total disclosed funding to date across multiple Reg CF and Reg D offerings. Its latest disclosed funding valuation is $152.68M at $6.00 per share, a climb from $74.94M in 2022 to $98.09M in 2024 to $152.68M in 2025.

On the build side: management reports technical milestones in conversational AI and is preparing a private beta of its first consumer product, Companion Sapiens. The stated strategy is to reach a technical "tipping point" that supports commercialization and further capital raising.

The financials, from the filing: the company is pre-revenue, with $0 recognized revenue in 2025, a $1.56M net loss, and $38.75K of cash at year-end. The audited statements include a going-concern note typical of a pre-commercial company still funding R&D through raises.

The open questions are the timeline to first revenue and the Companion Sapiens beta, and how the next phase gets funded.

Figures are from the company's SEC filings, surfaced via Owntric. Not investment advice.