Ann: UTR Enhances Internal Development Scope & Capabilities, page-13

UTR, WBT and several others are in a similar boat to SAS. Something happened (it escapes me) that made it more difficult for Israeli start-ups to reach funding goals in their own country. For co's like UTR there was a reciprocated trade delegation, it was a pretty big deal and I think another one came in February this year with the Israeli Prime Minister (and all the delegations are vetted!). ASX pitched an Australian listing to several companies, and voila.

I don't know much about Weebit as they didn't come up to scratch in my initial DD, but SAS and UTR certainly did. If you are wondering, @Bezzzzzo, about UTR's technology and it being too good to be true - AND that you seem to be concerned that it comes out of Israel - be assured the tech that they have the patents for is not Israeli. It is Singaporean. Professor Chen from Nanyang University in conjunction with Rachid Yazami (the co-inventor of the Lithium Battery......in particular, he invented the graphite anode part of the battery that his colleague's technology supercedes) discovered the tech back 2014-15 when UTR wasn't even a twinkle in the CEO's eye. They refined it with funding from the university and only hooked up with UTR when the next step was commercialisation.

So, I think your appraisal of UTR on the grounds of 'general dodginess' is a bit wayward, but I understand if its risk profile is too high for you. It is still an R&D tech stock in an earlier phase than some of its counterparts in an area that not many people know a whole lot about, and the major global battery companies who are just about to receive a test packet of the nanogel will need to like what they see for UTR to be able to move forward at this time with that product.

Maybe riskier than Winx, but it also has a far better reward profile

By the by, Fastbricks hasn't built a single house yet (nor even a single truck!), and SAS doesn't have a single functional phone customer. It's the punt you take, getting in at 2c, that it will happen, and if it doesn't you don't lose a whole lot because start-up R&D tech stocks don't form the backbone of anyone's smsf.

The difference between UTR and both FBR and SAS is that the latter two have already derisked much of their business model, hence the rise from 2c to 25c and 18c (TH) respectively. UTR can't really hope to match the 'de-risk' of these other two without, for example, signing a binding licensing agreement with Tesla for tons of our nanogel. In my opinion, there is no middle ground for UTR, same as FBR and SAS. None of them will slowly build, they will reach a point and just go gangbusters. UTR is just a bit behind them on the timeline is all, AND unlike SAS and FBR still carry the risk-unknown of a path between commercial product readiness and a buyer for their product.

But yes, certainly risky compared to something secure and promising like AGL.

Disclaimer/disclosure: I hold UTR, SAS and FBR. All the above is only my view, dyor etc