Hello, and welcome to this Lokotech Group webcast. My name is Yngve Johansen. I am the Chairman of the Board for Lokotech Group, and I will moderate today's session. First, to introduce myself, my background is physics. I took my exams out of NTNU before starting internationally, working with technology, technology development, use, and maturation, basically. My background is from the oil and gas industry. I started with Schlumberger, went through research on Statoil, and now today I'm looking after the R&D portfolio in Equinor, for subsurface. First, coming into Lokotech Group, my way into Lokotech Group is basically, and why I said yes when I got the opportunity to be Chairman, is basically that I saw this group of founders. They had this fantastic technology, and knowing a bit about where technology is in matureness, I thought that here I can contribute and help.
With the new board we got in place, I was lucky enough to join the team. With us today, we have Ola and Rubén. I'll let you introduce yourself before you start heading off with the presentation. Let me just say before Ola takes over that please write questions as we go along as we pass through the presentation, and then we can answer those towards the end of the presentation when we are done. Take it away, Ola.
Thank you, Yngve. Thank you for the introduction. My name is Ola Stene-Johansen. I am the CEO of Lokotech Group. I started and co-founded the subsidiaries that today make up a large part of the group. I've done so since I've dabbled in it since 2017, formally since 2019. And Rubén, he was lucky enough to step in for one of our other technical experts that had to, unfortunately, say no to this webcast in a very short time frame. Forget him if I need to intercept anything. He has had very little time to prepare. Anyways, Rubén, you're very welcome. Please introduce yourself.
All right. Thanks, Ola. I'm Rubén Gómez Morales. I'm a mathematician and a computer scientist, and I'm the CEO of PowerPool.io, one of the subsidiaries within Lokotech. It's a project I founded three years ago and Lokotech acquired close to a year ago now. I'm very happy to be here, happy to step in, and yeah, ready to answer anything or help out with anything that's necessary.
Thank you. Worthwhile to state that he is also part of the technical group and has partaken since the very inception of his employment. What is Lokotech Group today? In this presentation, we are going to talk about three of our subsidiaries. The main product, first and foremost, is an SQASIC or a chip. We are going to use those two terms a little bit intertwined in this presentation. An ASIC is an application-specific integrated circuit. It is also a chip, so depending on how specific you want to be. We are also going to talk about PowerPool. One of our subsidiaries operates a mining pool called PowerPool.io and is giving us some substantial cash flow. I also want to Arctic Core, which owns and operates four data center projects.
We've been working with this chip on an R&D basis since 2019, but in 2022, we successfully redesigned it, a more dense and more commercially viable iteration of the same design. We started testing the prototypes, a downscaled version anyways, in September 2023, and they've been mining live on the mainnet since that time. In September 2024, we got the final power sims. That's a pretty thorough simulation of the actual performance and the power usage of the commercial design. That design is beating the current market leaders and incumbents with about 135% on a measurement of power efficiency. We do this on a larger and less advanced production node. An important detail that we'll dig into in more depth later. The group today is cash flow positive. We have a 2/3 ownership of PowerPool Mining SL.
It operates this pool that pools together about 6,000 clients' hash rate, their computational power, and share the rewards that these miners together produce. In November 2024, they gave us a daily net revenue of about EUR 3,400. Both the fixed and the variable costs are pretty low, so our profit margin is in the high 90% on that net revenue. It has been growing significantly since the beginning of 2023, 20% per month in 2023 and about 14% per month in 2024. If the growth stagnates, we assume that the company will generate a profit of about EUR 1.5 million. If the growth continues as last year, we can almost double that figure to EUR 2.8 Arctic Core owns and operates four data center projects in various degrees of maturity. It includes a mountain hall of about 5,000 sq m with a decommissioned nuclear bunker inside.
We launched these more traditional data center services in the beginning of this year. We started paid marketing last week, and we think that we can support at least 10 large clients on the existing investments. All is equal. We think that at full occupancy, these sites can generate about somewhere in between NOK 5 million and NOK 10 million in free cash flow, and it'll heavily depend on which service levels and product mix will be the final combination of product offering. Back to the important stuff, the chip. As I said, we concluded that the redesign was successful. It seems to be a very competitive product on the price levels that we can attain based on the cost of producing the chips.
It beats Bitmain's newest models on a 2x-4x factor when you talk about power efficiency, depending on which generation of equipment you are comparing it against. We see that 10%-20% of the clients in PowerPool have now started to shift towards L9, but there's still a significant amount of L7 still running out there. If you compare our most comparable product to Bitmain's L9, you'll see that our product has a higher output, lower power consumption, and it's either cheaper or equal in price. We have secured some significant pre-orders from both large and small clients. Two of the clients, they have signed framework agreements in the range of $2 million-$5 million. The total backlog is somewhere in between $6 million and $12 million as of today. We do this on a larger node, which is important.
It makes it less technological risk attached to it. It's cheaper to design for, easier to get the production space, and also, I suppose that's it. Before I switch to the timeline, Rubén will introduce you to the schedule going from today until mass production. I want to remind you that this timeline has been, I wouldn't say designed, but it has been worked through together with our producer, together with the foundry. It's not an R&D timeline with internal estimates and a lot of Slack. This is a lot more firm than what we have presented earlier, in a sense. Rubén, would you want to explain the steps from here to mass production?
Sure. All right. Thanks for the intro. I think it's very important to specify what we said about foundry being the ones that are setting the next steps in terms of time. Just because it's not us saying that we're going to do this, this is what we've committed to doing with them and what they've told us that we have to do. I think it's very important. The current step that we find ourselves in is the tapeout. That's what's happening right now. The tapeout is actually when the foundry receives our design, and they take that design and generate what we call the mask set, what they call also the mask set. Those are a set of layers that define what the silicon is going to look like after all the lithography process.
When all the lasers, all the UV light is shined through that mask, that stencil, it generates those chips, and those are the chips we get back. We're expected to receive them in August, so that's when we're going to do our verification, reliability, and quality control of those first chips that we receive. It's important to note that the first chips that we receive are ones that are coming from the engineering wafers, meaning those are the first wafers that we get back from foundry. One thing that's important is that we'll receive them with a lower yield because, like all the projects that go first through a foundry, they have a yield curve, meaning that at the first wafers we receive, likely we'll only see about 30%-60% of the chips functioning out of those wafers.
As time goes on, as we enter mass production and the production ramp up, we're expected to see 90% or higher values than 90%. So 90%-98%, that's what the industry standard is for after we receive the first ones. Once we receive those, since we cannot exactly tell how many functional chips we'll get out of those, we know we'll be able to verify the functionality and already produce a few customer units, but we don't know how many of the customers we'll be able to fulfill. Right after those engineering wafers, we start receiving the production wafers, and that's when we're able to fulfill the bulk of all the back orders that we have for all the contracts and templates that we mentioned before.
One that you see here on the timeline, we also have a ref 1.1, which I'll explain in the next slide as well. One thing that is very important is that the design team that's designed the chip has actually gone through 15 other designs before our project, and they've gone through first-run passes, meaning that they didn't have to go back and redesign the mask set. They worked on the first pass. Since we don't want to take that risk of that sort of technical risk, we've already added ways to mitigate it. For example, we have on top of inside a chip, we have a microcontroller that allows us to check for faults within the chip on the software and everything and bypass them in case there's a faulty logic somewhere in the chip, as long as it's not major.
We also have done already an MPW run, which is a multi-project wafer run. That is when a lot of different projects get together and buy one wafer and get a few chips back to verify all of our IP. All the analog and digital aspects of the chip have already been verified, meaning that the technical risk is a lot lower since we already have checked our own customer IP and we are only using standard library aspects outside of it. Another thing that is very important is the mask 1.1. We can make small changes to the mask to increase our yield or fix major issues. We hope not to have to fix any major issues, but one thing we can do is we can respin a couple of these layers to be able to increase our yield.
If we are stuck on a point at the curve and we want to get higher, we can make that small investment and be able to get even a higher yield, lowering our cost in the long run. That is one of the possibilities we have there as well. Back to you, Ola, for the financials.
Thank you, Rubén. As I tried to explain, the chances of a strictly required respin we see is low. If it is needed, it has a time implication for us, three to four months to start again. The financial impact is non-material. As you said, Rubén, we are contemplating a capital raise. We are looking for between $12.5 million and $15 million. Eight out of those 15 will go towards the actual mask set, the 67 masks that together we can produce our chips. Four is going directly for raw material to produce the actual chips, and the rest is a capital buffer for general corporate purposes. The market size is, well, large. I want to take you to the logic here. This is a relatively simplified approach to it, seeing that the SQAPE market has 4x itself over the last four years.
What we know is that there is 1.9 petahashes live on the top SQAPE coins. It is not exactly precise because it has grown to 2.1 since we made this presentation. Anyways, if you translate that 1.9 petahashes into our estimated hash rate per hash plate, which is the lowest unit that we are able to sell, we can also sell servers with multiple of these hash plates installed in them. Regardless, we also sell single blades. You will get to 722,000 blades, and at $2,000 per blade, that gets you to $1.4 billion in an addressable market. We see our hardware to have an expected economical lifetime of seven and a half years based on the historical increases in difficulty, although that is probably a little bit longer with today's metrics.
Anyways, defined at seven and a half, and we see a three-year window to sell them, seeing that the client also wants some of that profitability to himself. It has a winner takes it all market where the most energy-efficient unit survives the longest, although today we run profitably 10-11 years old equipment. So a little bit of grain of salt. In summary, we're a listed company. The market cap is about NOK 450 million. We operate five subsidiaries. There are three of them we talk about today. We bring the most efficient SQAPE ASIC design to the market. We offer a 2x-4x better energy efficiency than the current competitor. We have already seen some significant interest from our clients.
Even though 95 out of 100 tells me, "Show me a hash plate and I'll place an order," we already secured a backlog of about $6 million-$12 million with some upside connected to it. We are cash flow positive today, our pool being the main cash contributor. We are here today to consider a capital raise of between NOK 125 million-NOK 175 million, sorry. I mean $12.5 million-$15 million. We have seen some interest already, and therefore we have attracted Pareto and SpareBank 1 as our managers to scour the market for the best potential financing for us and our shareholders. With that, I'll thank you for your time, and we'll open up for a Q&A session.
Okay. I see that we have received some good questions here, and I'll just start on the top. I think the first one could perhaps be for you, Ola. The question is, "Are you confident that you will receive the required financing in time to start tapeout as scheduled with the foundry mid-February?
That's an interesting question to ask in such a call, but I'm personally confident. When it comes to financing, it's all always about the terms. We can always take some really, really shitty terms, but we'll try not to. Therefore, we have two of the best investment banks in Norway to help us through this phase.
Okay. We have another question. This next question is about the notice we sent to the market on Friday last week. It's asking about that agreement. What is the strength of that agreement, and what kind of advantages does it give us in production of scales?
Okay. I think it's about the latest framework agreement.
Correct.
What I wanted to add some flavor to that agreement, it's a flexible agreement in the sense that we can self-decide when we are ready to deliver. It has a fixed margin, meaning that if there's any cost increases from GlobalFoundries in between now and then, it'll automatically levy on top of the client. That makes it a bit comfortable. As Rubén talked about earlier, it's a matter of understanding how the yield curve will be for our GlobalFoundries has obviously shared the numbers on other chip designs they've done on the same process. The estimate varies between 300 and 1,000 wafers until you reach the top. There's an unknown on the yield in between the engineering wafers and the top of the curve, so to say.
That is why I like the fact that we can levy some of these costs onto our clients, and we can also decide when we want to start to push more wafers through in the sense that we are happy with the calibration work that has been done so far and therefore have a very visible yield figure too.
Yeah. Makes sense. Okay. Next question is basically, well, it's a question on the volume of the order. A large order versus a smaller order, will there be any difference in terms of the negotiation with the GF, with the foundry?
Yes. Volume is the by far biggest cost driver for us. That means that because the fact GlobalFoundries will want to have a stable and predictable production schedule in order to keep their multi-billion dollar investment producing cash for them 24/7, 365 days a year, they are very happy to have large volume orders with predictable streams of wafers.
Okay. I have another question here. If I understand it correctly, I'll try to rephrase it in English. Since we already said that the date for the tapeout, we already have reserved it, is the funds associated with that tapeout, does that have to be available before we make such a commitment? Are these two things independent, or do they depend on each other?
Yes and no. If you define it precisely, it's when we hand over the design to the foundry. There's no reason to hand over our design to the foundry if we don't have the cash to invest in the masks that are required to produce the design. That being said, we are already in the tapeout process, meaning that we have done the internal DRC. We pre-run the checks GlobalFoundries will do so that we're certain that it will pass when we first go to tapeout. We're not able to tape it out and actually hand it over before we have the cash in order to invest in the market.
Yeah. Okay. There is another one on the capital raise initiative. There are, well, it's a bit hard to understand that question, actually. I think it goes to that somebody means that it's easy to misunderstand. Why don't you explain a little bit more about the capital raise initiative that we are talking about in the notice to the market last week?
Sure. It stems from the fact that we have tried to gain some traction from either equity or debt investors that could fund the whole round. Back and forth, we figured that this one US-based investor, which in theory has the cash to fill the whole round, if so be, that it is time to involve some professional managers. The final formalities on if it will be a private placement, a combination between hybrid debt structures and a private placement, is not yet done. It depends on the interest that the broker houses have gained traction on from the day we sent the message until whenever we decide it is sufficient demand on terms that we think that the shareholders will agree to.
Yeah. Okay. Next question. It is a very straightforward one. What is the reason that our chip outperforms our competitors? Why haven't any large global competitors done the same as us?
I think I can answer that one. One thing that we've seen in this industry is, for example, our main competitors, Bitmain. They developed the first, the most modern SQAPE miners. They first developed the L3, which was a very small and low-power compared machine to what we consider standard these days. It was mining at a few orders of magnitude worse efficiency than we're doing in the space right now. What Bitmain did was take that design, which was on an old node, and slowly bring it to a newer node every few years. They released the L5. It did not have much commercial success because there was no need for it yet. They did the L7, which is the one that brought the generation right before the new one. Now they did the L9.
They're all based on the same structure, the same base core of the design. All they did was just make it smaller, and not make it smaller through a redesign. They made it smaller just through paying more money for a more expensive mask on a newer technology that produces smaller transistors and essentially reducing the size and improving the efficiency. What we did was the opposite. Instead of making a trivial design and bringing it down to a low node so that we can compete with them, what we did was let's do a full redesign and make the technology work on a much bigger tech space. In this case, the 12-nm node. If we need to, then scale it down.
Currently we see no one that even matches our efficiency on the lower nodes, there's no need for us to step it down yet. If we wanted, we could take our design on the 12-nm node and go to 7-nm or 5-nm. That would already bring our efficiency up even a lot much higher than what they have right now. It is not that no one's copying us. It is just that no one has the starting step that we have right now of having already an efficient design on an old node.
Okay. So basically, we're saying that we have a much smarter numerical method to calculate SQAPE than the competitor, right?
Yes.
All right. Move to next. How much have we invested in the development of the chip so far?
Roughly.
You, perhaps?
Yeah, sure. Roughly calculated, you'll end up at or around NOK 100 million invested in R&D and supporting activities so far. It's not a garage thing. If you compare it to other attempts in this space, it's still a relatively small amount.
Okay. Next question. Do you own or lease the data centers that we are building up and operating by Arctic Core?
Two of the brownfields are owned on our own balance sheet. One greenfield is an infinite leasehold from the municipality, a test contract. One is leased with an option to buy.
Okay. Next one. This one, I think, goes to Rubén. What is the greatest risk associated with PowerPool? What do you see as the revenue potential of this business?
PowerPool currently sits in the rankings of biggest pools in the world. In the Bitcoin space, it sits at roughly 0.1% of the total volume size in the world. For SQAPE, it sits at 1%. It has a very big potential revenue as we keep scaling it. If we reach a higher percentage, we would be in a much higher value. We would still be keeping our variable cost as low as we showed in the presentation. One of the risks that we can see is that struggle to grow. We have seen a very, very big growth, especially in the last months. It is not such a risk that we consider is very likely to happen.
One of the biggest risks of operating and maintaining a pool and expanding a pool is the size of the market that you're tapping into and the size of clients that are coming towards you. Currently, we see a lot of traction through a lot of social media. We're all over Reddit, people mentioning us without us having to be there, just from customers talking to other customers. I think that's the biggest strength of this venture.
I want to intercept. At least to me, as representing the largest shareholder in PowerPool, to me, the biggest risk is human. If Bitmain decides to buy off Rubén or he decides to drive too fast on a late evening and something happens, PowerPool would be severely crippled. It could also result in the fact that the clients would then switch. That is, at least for me, the biggest risk.
I won't be worried . Don't worry. No, no. I'm not worried.
I'm not worried. I'm just stating it. I think we have publicly mentioned before, Rubén, that the strategic growth initiatives should lead to a 500%-1,000% growth over this year. We're still leaning into that. Yeah. Okay. Here is a question on the self-mining numbers with reference to an earlier presentation where we have mentioned $110 million in self-mining from 2026. I think that might be a slight misunderstanding. Take us through, Ola, a little bit on the self-mining options. When will this potentially then kick in if we choose to scale self-mining faster?
Self-mining, $110 million, that's 5% of the total newly emitted coins on the SQAPE. If you times it by 20, you'll get to $2.2 billion worth of newly minted coins annually. We operate on various targets internally on how much asset we should own on our own balance sheet. We think that we should, over time, develop into somewhere in between 5% and 10% or 15% even, so somewhere in there. If you take too much, you're cannibalizing too much of your client's business. Regardless of the fact that we want to invest into self-mining, we'll need some self-mining on any business plan. It has to do with our RMA program and running reference batches in-house. It depends on how quickly we're able to recycle the equity from the first sales.
If we are better off recycling it into equipment and sell them what we call spot with no delay in delivery or mine with them ourselves, that again relates to the price that you're able to achieve spot because it's all about giving enough upside for a client to run this hardware comfortably versus using it ourselves. Right now, I think you'd be looking at a payback time of about 100 days. We can recycle the equity at least three times a year just based off of that. I think it's a very, very interesting leg. The board hasn't taken any strategic decisions on how much we should try and grow into over at least next year, 2026. We're obviously ready for it with the supporting data center projects in Arctic Core.
Yeah. So basically, on behalf then of the person that asked the question, with what we see of verticals we are building up now around basically the chip and this ASIC, it is something that the investor should count into that will happen and you will get back with the amount later. Is that a fair summary?
Yep.
Okay. All right. Next question. Yeah. There are a few here. There is another question on, are you confident on the tapeout date? I guess the answer to that as already is yes. How much money is needed to commit before one gets a date at the foundry? I guess that question comes from that we have said that we have already committed. I'm not too sure if is there anything to say about that, Ola? You would have to.
No, not really. Not really. The date is firm. I can say that much. I am not going to breach the NDAs we have with the suppliers on the payment terms and on the date itself. You can be sure that the material presented in this presentation is accurate when it comes to the size of what is needed to be committed.
Yeah. Okay. How many firm orders do you have today? I guess it's in terms of numbers.
How many in terms of numbers?
Yeah. Firm orders, I guess that will be the minimum amount, I guess, from all the.
Sure.
Yeah.
Yeah. I don't think I'm going to be missing with much if I state that we have around 100-110 or so small orders. We have three larger distributors that have placed a minimum-sized order. We know that they've sold more than what they've bought. We are waiting for them to firm up the actual number, therefore a bit of the range. If you take the two framework agreements, add on the three distribution agreements, and then file on the rest, you'd be looking at what, 115 maybe?
Okay.
Out of the $6 million-$12 million, $2 million, a bit more is in non-framework agreements.
Yeah. So then basically, when you said $6 million-$12 million it means that you know that in minimum, you have $6 million worth of orders. And more might come in as the framement agreements confirm the final amount.
Yeah. Sometime during February, hopefully the first half. I do not have much time left. We will firm up at least one of those two framework agreements. We will get a precise number to you on the first two to five. That will show a bit more clarity, perhaps. The client has indicated strongly that he would like to firm it up in the higher end of that interval.
Okay. Let me scroll through. Will there be a showroom somewhere to show them technical solutions or to show the technology together with the support?
That's an interesting question.
It's an interesting question. The answer might surprise you a little bit because we do have some pretty lengthy discussions with our Chinese distributor. He has a very strong wish to have a showroom in close relationship to the electronics market in Shenzhen with every other miner out there. We haven't really sorted out the details on how to organize it, who's paying for what. That being said, I think our office should probably be a better showroom than a retail location somewhere expensive in Oslo downtown.
Okay. Here is a question on the PowerPool's dividend policy. Perhaps it's for Rubén. What is it? What will it be going forward?
It is a bit different how a pool operates compared to a traditional company because it is very cash-heavy because you have a lot of liquidity. You have to operate in a way that you can perform dividends in a reliable way. That is why we started with that two-month expectation for dividends. We are looking into pausing that a little bit to see if we can recycle some of that model towards growing the pool much quicker through more advertisements, going to fairs and this sort of approaches.
However, we still need to revise it at some point throughout this month. We are not yet exactly sure exactly how we are going to do it, but it is still going to be, it is always cash positive. As long as we are like that, we are always going to be giving out dividends. It is just the volume of those.
If it's going to be 100% of the money generated, it's going to go towards a dividend, or a percentage is going to stay in-house for growth, or how this can look. For example, we just registered for Mining Disrupt 2025, which we're going to be attending. Those sort of efforts are necessary to keep growing. That's why we can always keep going. Yeah.
Okay. So you're saying then basically that also there will be in the future dividends, but also there will be a focus on growth.
Exactly. Yeah.
Yes. There is a question here. Somebody say, when will there be an emission? I think that is.
I was looking for an equity emission then. I think that question is something you should call up your broker or contact person, SpareBank 1 and Pareto.
Yeah.
Because our hands are a little bit tied on the timeline depending on how much demand you guys show. Please call them down. They're very eager to take your feedback.
Yes. Okay. The next question is, if required financing is secured this week, will you be ready to start tapeout immediately? I guess this question is sort of duplicating a little bit what we have said earlier that in many ways, we are already in tapeout. There are a number of things that need to be done before taping out. It is already given in a notice to the market that the date is booked. I think we jump to the next one. If you move gradually from 12 nm node to a 5 nm node in the next generation, how much further will efficiency improve? Ola, this one for you, perhaps.
Sure. Gradually. First of all, we'll not do it gradually, meaning that we'll take it from 12 nm- 10 nm- 8 nm- 7 nm- 5 nm. No, we'll choose the most advanced node that we can comfortably navigate in. Today, that would have been the 5 nm. If you halve the nanometers from 12 nm- 6 nm, the rule of thumb is that you can double the performance and reduce the power consumption to half. It is a 4x on efficiency. A bit more than 4x if you're going from 12nm- 5 nm.
Oh.
5.76 nm. Yeah.
Okay. Impressive. Next question. How do you secure the technology? How are we making sure that nobody steals it? There is a question on patents or yeah.
Sure. Sure. So yeah, there is patented technology going into the chip, about 45 or 50 or so different patents in the end. We do not own any of those patents. We have not patented the design or patented for use the exact techniques that we use to improve efficiency on an algorithmic level. If we would have done so, we just would have given the answer to at least some of the efficiency gains to our competitors. The design is protected in several ways. First of all, there is what we call a PUF, a physical unclonable function. This means that the microcontroller will use the small impurities in the silicon to create its fingerprint and derive an encryption key based on its own physical silicon. During wafer probing, we will extract that key value. Each chip will have its own fingerprint.
Without that key value, we wouldn't be able to communicate to the actual chip. If you were able to break that encryption, I think you'd be better off draining everyone's bank account rather than trying to reverse engineer our chip. It's the same encryption code used for international banking. That being said, it makes it a lot more difficult to reverse engineer the actual chip. Also, it's built physically in a way that if you start to microscrape the different layers, you will destroy the next layer. It's an incredible time-consuming and expensive process that in many ways wouldn't happen. Even if they were, for some reason, able to do so, taking this design to GlobalFoundries will then conduct your checks, see if you had a license in. They will deny anyone to produce it.
You had to translate that chip design to someone that would produce it in breach of international IP laws. You'd probably be looking at UMC or some other Chinese ones that might not have the same policies as the large international players. There's no criticism to UMC. I'm just generalizing here. In summary, it'd be a lot quicker and a lot cheaper to acquire us or our subsidiary in that sense. Did that answer the questions?
Yeah. I think that was a very elaborate answer and also very precise. That is covered. What strategy do you have to attract more miners to the pool and increase market share? I guess this is for you, Rubén. How many miners can the pool handle?
The main strategy we're using right now to attract other miners to join, first is what we said, other miners attracting other miners to get them to join. We have a referral program that is bringing a lot of new customers. That was what we're doing up until now. Now we're also doing promotions with YouTubers, which is did one with Rabbit Mining, which was very successful. It really catapulted us forward very strongly. That was a very effective way to do it and very rewarding in terms of payback of the effort that was put into it. We're also going now to these trade shows as being vendors there, which is also going to help us a lot as well there too. Another way we're getting to increase is through our direct sales. We have salespeople.
They have different agents around the world, which are going to different farms, pitching our solutions as well as our own other projects that we're bringing to market in this coming months that they enjoy a lot. They are also betting heavily on those. That is also what's driving growth. In terms of size that the pool can handle, we're incredibly confident that we can 10x the current size and still be able to handle everything as it is. If we are to keep increasing the size, we have servers in place ready to take over the workload for all the new connections that come in. We are future-proofed in that aspect. With the new redesign that is coming for the interface and user experience that we're doing for that is coming up, those numbers will be even more strong.
We'll be able to handle even more with the current computing capacity that we have. We are very future-proofed in that aspect.
Rubén, do you want to give some flavor to the SOC certification?
Sure. SOC 1, SOC 2 are already on the way. We got the feedback back from the parties that were doing the checks. That is one of the things that will come with the next UI. Those updates will be able to on the UI are also backpropagated with the feedback that we got from the auditors. We can be SOC 1 and SOC 2 certified right after the UI is published, this new update.
What it means is that it's a minimum certification required by US-based enterprise clients, same as an ISO certification or a FINRA certification for that matter if you're a broker. This is bare minimum. I think it will accelerate the traction we have between enterprise-sized clients, at least allow us even to start to show them how great this is.
Okay. Here's another question. With regards to the capital raise initiative, will there be any lockup period for new investors?
I think that is, Ola, you can answer it, but I guess that is just the way that happens, it will just be regular terms, basically. I don't know, Ola, you have anything to add on that?
I don't really have anything specific to add on yet because it's part of the negotiations that the managers will have with eventual large takers of equity. So far, a lot of the interests have been on the convertible loan side. Yeah. It is also a question of, is there anyone else taking lockup? To be determined.
Yeah. Okay. What is the status of the WIC redesign and the SOC 1 approval? I guess you touched on that already, but.
Yeah, but the WIC redesign, we haven't touched upon. We faced some challenges after Apple decided to make some major changes in how their operating system handles rendering. Instead of trying to keep up to date four different versions, we went back and made it cross-platform compatible for all future releases. Instead of doing 4x the work, we're doing it once. It has taken a little bit longer time than expected, but we're talking weeks now. We will relaunch it on a lower price point with a little bit more functionality in it.
Okay. We are nearing up on the end here, but still there are a few questions. We have one here on what strategy are we planning with regards to dividends for the stockholders looking forward? Imagine 2026, 2027 past that. Any comments to that, Ola?
We have not really discussed any future dividend policies on a board level yet. It is fair to assume that the first generation of units will produce a cash process larger than what we are able to invest in ourselves. Some type of return to the shareholders is natural to discuss when that is a fact, either as a dividend or as a share buyback or any other way of returning that profit to our shareholders.
Yeah. I see there are many questions that are a little bit similar to this. There are things that need to be, this is not the forum to answer it because they haven't been discussed on board or some is even for general assembly. I will skip those questions. Last one here, is there any danger that a third party may claim that their IP has been compromised?
I suppose there's always a risk for that happening. What can I say? We are insured against that. There's a Canadian insurance company that's covering third-party litigations on IP infringement claims. Yeah, TBD, I don't think it'll become an issue. Hopefully, it won't lead to us having to reveal anything to anyone when it comes to what we are actually doing on the inside of the ASIC.
Okay. All right. I think then we have pretty much moved through a large number of questions here. We have been going for 50 minutes. Unless there's anything more popping up, I think we are starting to get ready to round this Q&A session off. I just want to remind the viewers that you can always also, if you forgot to ask some question, you can always just shoot a mail to host@lokotech.com or directly to Ola Stene-Johansen, osj@lokotech.no or myself, ybj@lokotech.no. With that, I think I'm just going to thank you for your attendance.
Thank you for your time, for listening, and also.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to Hegnar Media for hosting us today.