Comment by microtonal

Comment by microtonal 6 days ago

13 replies

Really excited to a company investing into immutable and cryptographically verifiable systems. Two questions really:

1. How will the company make money? (You have probably been asked that a million times :).)

2. Similar to the sibling: what are the first bits that you are going to work on.

At any rate, super cool and very nice that you are based in EU/Germany/Berlin!

blixtra 6 days ago

1. We are confident we have a very robust path to revenue.

2. Given the team, it should be quite obvious there will be a Linux-based OS involved.

Our aims are global but we certainly look forward to playing an important role in the European tech landscape.

  • 2b3a51 6 days ago

    "We are confident we have a very robust path to revenue."

    I take it that you are not at this stage able to provide details of the nature of the path to revenue. On what kind of timescale do you envisage being able to disclose your revenue stream/subscribers/investors?

    • michaelt 5 days ago

      "Ubuntu Core" is a similar product [1]

      As I understand it, the main customers for this sort of thing are companies making Tivo-style products - where they want to use Linux in their product, but they want to lock it down so it can't be modified by the device owner.

      This can be pretty profitable; once your customers have rolled out a fleet of hardware locked down to only run kernels you've signed.

      [1] https://ubuntu.com/core

      • noitpmeder 5 days ago

        This sounds like a net negative for the end user

  • egorfine 5 days ago

    How do you take the generally negative feedback from the community here?

    I have no more information about your product that you have shared but I'm already scared and extremely pessimistic given the team and the ambition.

  • ingohelpinger 5 days ago

    Appreciate the clarification, but this actually raises more questions than it answers.

    A "robust path to revenue" plus a Linux-based OS and a strong emphasis on EU / German positioning immediately triggers some concern. We've seen this pattern before: wrap a commercially motivated control layer in the language of sovereignty, security, or European tech independence, and hope that policymakers, enterprises, and users don't look too closely at the tradeoffs.

    Europe absolutely needs stronger participation in foundational tech, but that shouldn't mean recreating the same centralized trust and control models that already failed elsewhere, just with an EU flag on top. 'European sovereignty' is not inherently better if it still results in third-party gatekeepers deciding what hardware, kernels, or systems are "trusted."

    Given Europe's history with regulation-heavy, vendor-driven solutions, it's fair to ask:

    Who ultimately controls the trust roots?

    Who decides policy when commercial or political pressure appears?

    What happens when user interests diverge from business or state interests?

    Linux succeeded precisely because it avoided these dynamics. Attestation mechanisms that are tightly coupled to revenue models and geopolitical branding risk undermining that success, regardless of whether the company is based in Silicon Valley or Berlin.

    Hopefully this is genuinely about user-verifiable security and not another marketing-driven attempt to position control as sovereignty. Healthy skepticism seems warranted until the governance and trust model are made very explicit.

  • [removed] 5 days ago
    [deleted]