The Parazero system certainly looks impressive... but I wonder...

The Parazero system certainly looks impressive... but I wonder whether some of its features exceed the basic requirements of many users? For example:

Flight log data of an incident might be useful for insurers (as stated in the Prospectus), drone OEMs, and even regulators, but the cost of this equipment is carried by the end user (unless Parazero cross-subsidises the cost of systems against the revenue they receive for this data).

Similarly, relying on a single shot ballistic charge to deploy the chute (which requires users to return the system to Parazero for recharging and repacking) is a significant additional expense over systems that enable the user to repack the chute themselves in the field (e.g. Skycat Pro deploys with a fuse/spring system that can be reused again and again). I.E. Not all UAV flight incidents arise from a catastrophic failure of the UAV; drifting out of signal range or exhausted batteries are common causes of UAV crashes.

As it says on page 14 of the Prospectus, this is a highly competitive field. There are many alternative approaches to resolving these safety issues (i.e. patent protections may be of limited utility and margins are likely to be squeezed at every point). Parazero clearly have an early mover advantage with their tech (and with regulators) and an impressive  revenue stream for an early start-up, but they will face serious headwinds as the sector matures. Hopefully they're already thinking about moving from third-party provider to JVs with drone OEMs (they definitely want to be onboard when OEMs start integrating these safety features in their drones).

I'm always amazed at the ingenuity and talent of folks at this end of the market, and the opportunity some companies present to investors. Parazero is no exception. I'm on the sidelines for now, but may deploy funds shortly... GLTAH R-7