Financial Summary
The model says one thing plainly: the business turns cash-positive in its first year of revenue and funds itself from there. The only money it needs to reach that point is a small bridge through 2027, before the first contract lands. Everything below is a management estimate from the cost-to-serve model, and none of it is contracted yet; the whole projection is gated on the first signed contract, GATE 0.
The shape of it
Revenue starts in 2028, the first sale year, and compounds to about $108M by 2035, a 47% annual growth rate. Gross margin starts high and widens. EBITDA — the cash the business throws off before financing and accounting items — is positive from the first revenue year and reaches roughly 71% of revenue by 2035. The reason is the structure set out in Unit Economics: a fixed cost built once, spread over a growing revenue base.
| US$M | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 0 | 7.4 | 20.5 | 36.6 | 53.9 | 71.2 | 85.9 | 97.4 | 108.3 |
| Gross margin % | — | 74% | 75% | 80% | 83% | 85% | 86% | 86% | 86% |
| Corporate overhead | (1.5) | (2.7) | (4.6) | (6.7) | (10.7) | (13.0) | (13.8) | (14.7) | (15.9) |
| EBITDA | (2.1) | 2.8 | 10.8 | 22.6 | 34.2 | 47.5 | 59.7 | 68.8 | 77.1 |
| EBITDA margin % | — | 37% | 53% | 62% | 64% | 67% | 69% | 71% | 71% |
All figures are management estimates from the cost-to-serve model, on the base case (platform build grant-funded). Revenue begins in 2028 (IS1, IS2, IS3) and 2029 (IS4, IS5). Negative numbers in parentheses. 2035 is a modelled endpoint, not a forecast.
Cash: a small bridge, then self-funding
- The only operating cash gap is 2027, the pre-revenue year, at about $2.1M. This round bridges it.
- From 2028, operations fund themselves. Operating cash flow is positive from 2028 and compounds; the data business never needs another equity dollar for operations in the model.
- The platform build (about $19.3M over 2027 to 2030) is funded separately, mostly by non-dilutive grant, so it does not compete with operating cash.
- On the data business alone, cumulative cash builds from about $2.7M in 2028 to roughly $300M by 2035.
By the Rule of 40 (growth rate plus profit margin should exceed 40), the model sits far above the line every year from 2029, because high growth and high margin arrive together.
With the grant, and without it
The base case assumes the $19.3M platform is grant-funded, which is the plan but is not yet secured (it is part of GATE 0). To be objective, the model also runs the same business without the grant.
- With the grant (base case): the build is non-dilutive, so no depreciation hits the profit line, and founders are diluted only by the equity round.
- Without the grant: the same $19.3M is raised as equity or debt and then depreciated, which lowers EBIT by about $2.4M a year and adds either dilution or roughly $1.5M a year of interest. The business is still profitable, with positive EBIT from 2029.
The grant does not change how the business operates. It changes who pays for the platform and how much the founders are diluted. We present both so the downside is visible.
What is not in these numbers
One important line sits deliberately outside the model. The concession does generate carbon revenue of its own, but it is held in a separate entity and is treated here as a placeholder to be ratified, kept off the data profit-and-loss. The figures above are the data business standing on its own. We do this on purpose: the investment case is the data company, and it has to work without leaning on the concession's carbon cash. The carbon, when ratified, is upside held in the structure (69% to the data company, 31% to a non-controlling interest), not a number we ask an investor to underwrite today.
The honest read
Every figure here is a management estimate, the company is pre-revenue with no signed contracts, and the entire ramp depends on GATE 0, the first paid contract. The grant that underpins the base case is not secured. The concession carbon is a placeholder, not ratified. The valuation these cash flows support, and how it is framed against the pre-seed price, is set out separately in The Deal, where the three valuation lenses are kept apart. What the model shows, and what is structural rather than assumed, is the shape: a small bridge to first revenue, profitability from the first sale year, and a fixed cost that turns into widening margin as coverage grows.