Didier Lasserre: So we are, but more for the Gemini-2 chip. And the reason I say that is, if you’re familiar with our solution, our Gemini-1 chip goes on a leaderboard, as I mentioned. And the leaderboard for the Gemini-1 has an FPGA on there that has certain functionality that is critical for our solution. With Gemini-2, we take that functionality that’s on the FPGA, and we put it with – in the Gemini-2 chip. And so now we can rid ourselves of that large FPGA. And so some of the applications you’re talking about power and form factor being smaller is more important. And so being able to rid ourselves of that FPGA will allow us to pursue those markets that were really a bit too challenging for our Gemini-1 chip.
Unidentified Analyst: Yes, all right. Yes, because I’m thinking about that and there’s like next step prospects is kind of thinking about the sensitivity of timing and business relationships, especially these advanced fields that are requiring a lot of R&D and my engender kind of a commitment from these large companies that are developing their programs and the component companies and how they’re yes say, making systems on chips that are highly customized and requiring a lot of investment? They hope to get something back on and just trying to think about how they might approach or how you might approach that relationship in terms of holding the place and for the future development and not having to directly compete with all these – like inefficiently developed system on chips toe-to-toe?
But rather kind of for them to anticipate being able to adopt your hardware and even your software and to kind of have that in mind as they develop these programs. Yes kind of wondering if that’s something that you are seeing in terms of a one to two-year development plan as you talk to potential clients?
Didier Lasserre: So I want to make sure – I’m not sure I fully understood your question. But as far as custom silicon and system on chips and everything out there – most everything has really been geared towards the training portion of the market. And as we’ve discussed in the past, that’s not the application we’re focused on. We’re focused on similar research. And there are obviously other applications or computation and intensive that our solution, lends itself well. And because of the way we’ve architected our part where we actually do the processing and the search in place as opposed to having effective data and rewrite data. We – that technology we have is PAM protected, and we haven’t seen anybody try to do that at this point.
And so, we have carved out a niche in the similarity search. And so as far as other silicon coming in or other SoCs, it’s really, like I said, most of the solutions we’ve seen have really been geared around trying to make the training faster.
Unidentified Analyst: All right, yes I understand it. Yes thanks for answering and excited you all have gotten just confirmation after confirmation keep rolling.
Didier Lasserre: Thanks Luke.
Operator: Our next question is from George Gaspar, who’s a Private Investor. Please proceed with your question.
Unidentified Analyst: Good day to everyone there. George Gasper here, could you relate a little bit more detail about how many employees you have now versus when you started to disengage employment? And how does that relate? What – how many total people have left? And what is your employment number now? And could you give us an idea of the – how much of the stack – how many shares of stock were helped by the employees that you’ve left go?
Lee-Lean Shu: So we had approximately a little over 180 in total. Now we’re down to like right around 165 or so. The paper that left, I don’t recall the exact number of options that were canceled upon them leaving, but it wasn’t a significant number. I mean, we still have about, I want to say maybe about 8.5 million or so option shares outstanding.
Unidentified Analyst: And say that again, there are – how many shares are outstanding to employees?
Lee-Lean Shu: I want to say it’s about 8.5 million cars of shares that have been grounded.
Unidentified Analyst: 8.5 million, and then the $654,000 of base – tax-based stock issuance in this recent quarter. How does – that stack up in terms of the total expense for employees non-cash and then cash?
Douglas Schirle: Gasper, I can get back to you offline. I don’t have all that information in front of me right now, but I can get it for if you need it. But the stock-based compensation expenses is — we’ve been running around that level for several years, and I don’t see it going up significantly. It will probably be a similar number.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. But obviously, this is — the stock-based — stock issuance is important to stabilize your total expense structure. And we have to assume that, that’s going to stay in that range of the last quarter, would you say that $654,000.
Douglas Schirle: I would say so.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay.
Douglas Schirle: And that isn’t — that’s not shares that we’ve issued. That’s just assumed value of the options that we’ve granted to employees. The accounting rules require us to place the value on the option grants and then expense them over a period of time.
Unidentified Analyst: Right. Okay. And then this $654,000 is rated as an expense in terms of your operation on a quarterly basis, correct? In other words —
Douglas Schirle: We record that in the — we record that in the income statement every quarter. It’s a noncash expense.
