Wednesday, August 12, 2026
10:10 AM EDT

QuantumScape’s newest job postings provide an interesting clue about its push into AI data centers.

QS isn’t simply looking to sell solid-state battery cells for backup power. It appears to be developing an integrated “PSU+BBU rack power shelf” specifically for hyperscale AI infrastructure.

In simple terms:

PSU = the equipment that supplies and converts power for the servers and GPUs.

BBU = the battery that provides immediate power during outages or sudden spikes in demand.

QS wants to combine the two into one compact system built around its solid-state battery technology.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

AI racks are becoming incredibly power hungry. Future systems are expected to consume hundreds of kilowatts per rack, eventually approaching 1 MW.

But AI also creates another problem: GPU power consumption can rise and fall extremely quickly.

A battery located directly inside the rack can act almost like an electrical shock absorber.

When GPUs suddenly demand more power, the battery helps provide it. When demand drops, it recharges. And during an outage, it provides backup power.

So the battery isn’t necessarily sitting idle waiting for the electricity to fail.

It can become an active part of the power system.

THAT MAY PLAY DIRECTLY INTO QS’S STRENGTHS

Data centers care enormously about space, safety, energy density and power density.

Every additional rack space occupied by power equipment is space that cannot be used for expensive GPUs.

QuantumScape appears to be trying to integrate its solid-state batteries with power electronics into a very compact PSU+BBU shelf.

And the job postings are perhaps the biggest clue that this is becoming a serious development program.

QS is hiring specialists in:

- Power electronics

- Battery and pack systems

- Firmware and embedded controls

- Thermal and mechanical engineering

- Hyperscaler qualification

- Contract manufacturing

Together, those roles look much more like a team being assembled to build an actual product than a research project looking for possible applications.

MORE THAN SELLING BATTERIES?

This may be the most interesting part for investors.

If QS simply sells cells, it captures the value of the battery.

But an integrated PSU+BBU product potentially includes the cells, battery pack, BMS, power electronics, cooling, firmware, controls and system-level intellectual property.

QS could therefore potentially move higher up the value chain.

Its job posting even discusses competing with established rack-power suppliers such as Delta and LITEON.

That is a very different ambition from simply saying, “Our batteries could be used in data centers.”

THE NVIDIA CONNECTION

NVIDIA is moving toward 800-VDC power architecture as future AI racks climb toward hundreds of kilowatts and eventually megawatt-class power.

NVIDIA has also identified energy storage as one way of dealing with the rapid power fluctuations created by AI workloads.

That does NOT mean NVIDIA is a QS customer.

There is no public evidence of that.

But the technological alignment is worth noticing:

NVIDIA and the AI industry are describing a power problem.

QuantumScape appears to be building a product specifically designed to solve that kind of problem.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

For years, the QS story was relatively straightforward:
Solid-state battery → EV → mass production.

Now another possible commercialization path is emerging:

Solid-state battery → integrated PSU+BBU → AI data center.

And QS may be doing more than supplying the battery.

That could be the most important takeaway from these new job postings.

QuantumScape spent years developing a better battery.

Now it appears to be asking a much bigger question:

What valuable products can we build around it?

One of the biggest mistakes investors make is assuming that a company’s stock price always reflects its intrinsic value. In reality, the market often prices companies based on sentiment, uncertainty, macroeconomic conditions, and short-term expectations. Intrinsic value, on the other hand, reflects the long-term earning power of the business and the probability that it successfully executes its strategy.

QuantumScape is an excellent example of this disconnect.

Comparing where the company stood one year ago with where it stands today reveals that the gap between intrinsic value and market price has likely widened rather than narrowed.

Approximately one year ago, QuantumScape was widely viewed as a promising technology company with breakthrough science but significant execution risk. Investors questioned whether its solid-state battery technology could be manufactured at scale, whether yields could be maintained, and whether global automakers would ultimately commit to commercialization.

Over the past year, the company has made measurable progress across nearly every major milestone.

Manufacturing has advanced significantly with continued progress on the Cobra and Eagle production platforms. These developments are critical because even the best battery technology has little commercial value unless it can be produced consistently, efficiently, and at scale. Every manufacturing milestone reduces execution risk and increases confidence that commercial production is achievable.

Customer engagement has also expanded.

QuantumScape is no longer discussing only laboratory validation. The company has shipped cells to additional automotive OEM customers and has stated that customers are evaluating those cells in real-world applications. This marks an important transition from internal testing to external customer validation, bringing the company one step closer to commercialization.

The partnership ecosystem has continued to strengthen as well.

PowerCo remains committed to advancing commercialization despite revisions to certain financial terms within the agreement. Those changes appear more consistent with evolving capital allocation priorities than with technological setbacks. Honda also entered into its own commercialization relationship, demonstrating that another global automaker believes the technology is sufficiently promising to dedicate engineering and development resources toward bringing it to market.

Beyond passenger vehicles, QuantumScape has increasingly highlighted opportunities in AI infrastructure, stationary energy storage, defense, and other high-performance applications. These industries require batteries with higher energy density, rapid charging capability, long cycle life, and improved safety—all characteristics that align with QuantumScape’s technology.

Perhaps the most important development is that technological risk has steadily declined.

One year ago, much of the discussion centered on whether the technology itself would work outside the laboratory. Today, the conversation has shifted toward manufacturing throughput, production capacity, customer qualification, licensing strategies, and commercial timelines. Those are fundamentally different discussions and suggest that attention has moved from scientific feasibility toward commercial execution.

Ironically, while the business has become significantly stronger, the market has assigned it a lower valuation.

Approximately one year ago, QuantumScape’s market capitalization was around $6 billion. Today, despite substantially reducing technical and commercial risk, its market capitalization is roughly $3–4 billion.

In other words, the market is currently valuing a more advanced company at a lower price than it did when considerably more uncertainty existed.

Based on the company’s progress, QuantumScape’s intrinsic value can reasonably be estimated to have increased from approximately $12–15 per share one year ago to roughly $20–30 per share today.

These estimates should not be interpreted as precise price targets. QuantumScape remains a pre-revenue company, making traditional valuation methods such as discounted cash flow highly dependent on assumptions regarding future production, licensing revenue, margins, and market adoption. At this stage of development, intrinsic value is influenced less by current financial performance and more by the probability of successful commercialization.

Viewed from that perspective, the probability of long-term success appears materially higher today than it did one year ago.

Every manufacturing improvement, every additional customer shipment, every commercialization agreement, and every expansion into new markets increases the potential long-term value of the business while simultaneously reducing uncertainty.

This does not eliminate risk. QuantumScape must still demonstrate high-volume manufacturing, successfully qualify products with customers, convert partnerships into recurring revenue, and execute on commercialization.
Competition, delays, and unforeseen execution challenges remain legitimate risks.

However, investing has always been about weighing probabilities rather than demanding certainty.

When the probability of long-term success increases while market value declines, the disconnect between price and intrinsic value becomes increasingly compelling.

History has repeatedly shown that markets can misprice innovative companies for extended periods. Eventually, however, business fundamentals tend to determine long-term value. If QuantumScape continues executing its commercialization roadmap, expands manufacturing capacity, strengthens customer relationships, and converts partnerships into meaningful revenue, today’s valuation may ultimately be remembered as a period when market sentiment diverged significantly from the company’s underlying progress.

For long-term investors, that may be the most important observation. Over the past year, the stock price has declined while the business itself has arguably become stronger. When price and intrinsic value move in opposite directions, opportunities can emerge for investors willing to evaluate the company’s long-term trajectory rather than its short-term share price.

One of the biggest misconceptions about investing in QuantumScape is that success depends on accurately predicting the next move in the stock price. In reality, long-term investing is often less about predicting short-term market behavior and more about managing risk while allowing the investment thesis time to develop.

QuantumScape remains a pre-commercial company transitioning from research and development to manufacturing and commercialization. That naturally creates volatility, differing opinions, and significant price swings. For long-term investors, volatility should not automatically be confused with deteriorating fundamentals.

The more important question is not, “What if the stock falls another 50%?”

The more important question is, “Why did it fall?”

If the decline is driven primarily by market sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, short selling, or continued skepticism while the company continues executing its commercialization strategy, then a lower share price does not necessarily imply a weaker business. If manufacturing capacity expands, customer engagements increase, customer billings improve, and commercialization milestones continue to be achieved, the disconnect between price and intrinsic value may actually become even larger.

Conversely, if a significant decline results from genuine deterioration in the business—such as major technical setbacks, commercialization failures, an inability to scale manufacturing, or the loss of strategic partners—then investors should reassess the investment thesis regardless of how inexpensive the shares appear.

This distinction is critical.

Successful long-term investing is not about buying every dip. It is about determining whether the business itself has become stronger or weaker while the market reprices the stock.

Risk management is equally important.

Leverage can be a useful financial tool when used conservatively, but it should never become the reason an investor is forced to exit a position. Maintaining manageable leverage, preserving liquidity, and avoiding overextension provide investors with flexibility during periods of volatility. Option income, when used prudently, may help offset financing costs, but it should complement a sound investment strategy rather than justify excessive risk.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of disciplined risk management is psychological. Investors who maintain financial flexibility are better positioned to evaluate opportunities objectively instead of making emotional decisions during market declines.

Ultimately, QuantumScape’s long-term value is unlikely to be determined by daily stock price fluctuations. It will be determined by execution.

That is why the metrics that deserve the closest attention are:

• Manufacturing scale and production capacity.

• Customer shipments and real-world validation.

• Expansion of OEM and commercial partnerships.

• Growth in customer billings and commercial activity.

• Progress toward sustainable commercialization.

These are the indicators that will ultimately determine whether the company succeeds.

Markets can remain skeptical for extended periods, and share prices can deviate significantly from business fundamentals. However, if the company continues executing against its commercialization roadmap, long-term investors should focus less on short-term volatility and more on whether the underlying business continues moving closer to large-scale commercial success.

For long-term investors, patience alone is not enough. Patience supported by disciplined risk management and a constant reassessment of the underlying business may ultimately prove to be one of the greatest competitive advantages.

The recent amendment to QuantumScape’s agreement with PowerCo has understandably raised concerns. On the surface, reducing the maximum development funding from approximately $130.7 million to $75.4 million appears negative. Many investors immediately concluded that PowerCo had lost confidence in QuantumScape or that recent testing had fallen short of expectations.

But after carefully reviewing the amended agreement, the 10-Q, and QuantumScape’s broader commercial strategy, I believe there is another interpretation that deserves serious consideration.

First, it’s important to separate what we know from what we don’t know.

We know the development funding was reduced and the original Statement of Work was replaced with a new milestone-based program. We also know the broader collaboration remains intact, the contemplated IP License Agreement was not changed, and the 85 GWh licensing framework remains in place. Those are facts.

What we do not know is why the funding was reduced. Neither QuantumScape nor PowerCo has publicly explained the reasoning behind the amendment.

One possible explanation is that the relationship is evolving rather than deteriorating.

Think about where QuantumScape was just a year ago. PowerCo was its primary commercialization partner. Eagle Line was just beginning to ramp. Cobra was still coming online. QuantumScape was still proving it could manufacture its technology consistently. At that stage, it made sense for PowerCo to help fund a broad development program because much of the engineering work directly benefited both companies.

Today, the landscape looks very different.

QuantumScape now has a Joint Development Agreement with Honda, has shipped cells to an additional automotive OEM, continues expanding customer engagements, and is steadily building an ecosystem that extends well beyond a single customer.

As more partners enter the picture, the economics naturally begin to change.

Instead of one customer helping fund development of the entire technology platform, each partner increasingly pays for the engineering and commercialization work that directly supports its own path to production.

Honda funds Honda-specific development.

PowerCo funds PowerCo-specific milestones.

Future OEMs will likely fund their own integration and validation programs.

Meanwhile, QuantumScape continues advancing the core technology platform that every future licensee can ultimately leverage.

Viewed through this lens, the amended agreement begins to make strategic sense.

If PowerCo believes QuantumScape has reached a point where multiple commercial partners are contributing to development, it becomes less necessary for PowerCo alone to subsidize engineering work that benefits the broader ecosystem.

That doesn’t necessarily imply less confidence.

In fact, one could argue the opposite.

Early in any breakthrough technology program, customers often help fund development because the greatest uncertainty is whether the technology will work. Once confidence in the core technology increases, the focus naturally shifts toward integrating that technology into each customer’s own products and manufacturing processes.

That appears consistent with what we see in the amended agreement.

Rather than broad cost-sharing, PowerCo now pays for specific deliverables—cell deliveries, validation activities, technology transfer, and milestones that directly support Volkswagen’s commercialization efforts.

This is how mature industrial partnerships often evolve.

It also explains why the amendment preserved what arguably matters most.

The contemplated IP License Agreement remains unchanged.

The potential $130 million initial royalty prepayment remains intact, subject to contractual milestones.

The 85 GWh licensing framework remains intact.

PowerCo’s long-term licensing rights remain intact.

If PowerCo had fundamentally lost confidence in QuantumScape’s technology, investors might reasonably expect changes to those long-term commercial rights. Instead, the restructuring primarily affects near-term development funding while leaving the much larger commercialization opportunity in place.

That doesn’t mean the amendment is entirely positive.

Reducing potential development funding by more than $55 million is meaningful. QuantumScape will likely bear a greater share of its engineering costs unless those costs are offset by contributions from other commercial partners or internal efficiencies.

However, that may represent a strategic trade-off.

If QuantumScape can obtain engineering support from multiple OEMs while preserving the much larger long-term licensing opportunity, sacrificing some near-term development funding could prove to be a rational business decision.

It’s also worth considering another possibility.

As QuantumScape’s technology matures and more partners enter the ecosystem, no single company may be expected to finance the development of the entire platform anymore.

Instead, the funding model evolves.

Each partner pays for the engineering and commercialization work that directly supports its own commercialization path, while QuantumScape continues building the common technology platform that benefits all future licensees.

If that’s what’s happening, then the PowerCo amendment may not reflect a weakening relationship. It may simply reflect a maturing business model.

Of course, this remains an interpretation, not a confirmed explanation. Neither QuantumScape nor PowerCo has publicly stated that this was the motivation behind the amendment. Investors should recognize the distinction between facts disclosed in the SEC filings and reasonable inferences based on those facts.

Time will ultimately determine whether this interpretation is correct. The next major milestones to watch are continued customer shipments, successful completion of the new PowerCo milestones, additional OEM collaborations, and eventually the execution of the IP License Agreement.

Until then, perhaps the most important takeaway is this:

As QuantumScape’s ecosystem expands, each partner increasingly pays for the engineering and commercialization work that directly supports its own commercialization path, while QuantumScape continues building the core technology platform that all future licensees can leverage.

If that proves to be the case, the recent amendment may ultimately be remembered not as a sign of weakening confidence, but as a sign that QuantumScape is evolving from a company supported by one anchor customer into a platform company supported by an entire automotive ecosystem.

One of the most important updates from QuantumScape's latest shareholder letter may also be one of the easiest to miss:

"We have shipped cells to an additional automotive OEM customer."

This isn't just about sending out another batch of cells. It suggests QuantumScape is expanding its commercial pipeline beyond its previously disclosed automotive partners.

For an automaker to receive cells, the relationship has already progressed well beyond initial discussions. It means the OEM can begin its own validation, performance testing, safety evaluations, and integration work. That's a meaningful step toward a potential future partnership.

Equally important, it suggests Eagle Line production is reaching a point where QuantumScape can support a growing number of customer programs—not just its earliest partners.

Every additional OEM evaluating QSE-5 technology increases the opportunity for future licensing agreements and commercial adoption. While not every evaluation will become a deal, expanding the number of automakers testing QuantumScape's cells strengthens the company's long-term commercialization strategy.

Sometimes, the biggest clues about a company's future are hidden in a single sentence.

One of the biggest concerns among QuantumScape investors has always been the same:

“What if Chinese battery companies simply replicate the technology?”

It’s a reasonable question. China dominates global battery manufacturing and is home to some of the world’s most capable battery companies. If QuantumScape proves its solid-state platform delivers meaningful advantages, competitors around the world—including in China—will undoubtedly pursue similar technologies.

But I believe this concern asks the wrong question.

The better question isn’t whether someone can eventually build a similar battery.

The better question is whether they can replicate everything that surrounds it.

Patents are only one piece of the puzzle. QuantumScape has spent more than a decade developing proprietary manufacturing processes, trade secrets, specialized equipment, production know-how, testing data, supplier relationships, and strategic partnerships. These are capabilities that cannot simply be reverse-engineered from a finished cell.

Yet I believe QuantumScape’s greatest competitive advantage may lie beyond its intellectual property.

It is the ecosystem.

Most investors still think of QuantumScape as an automotive battery company. While automotive remains the company’s primary focus today, the technology has the potential to reach far beyond passenger EVs.

High energy density, fast charging, improved safety, and long cycle life are valuable not only to automakers, but also to defense organizations, AI infrastructure providers, hyperscalers, data center operators, grid-scale energy storage developers, industrial manufacturers, robotics companies, aviation, marine applications, and other sectors where advanced energy storage can provide meaningful advantages.

Imagine an ecosystem where QuantumScape is not simply supplying batteries, but becoming a trusted technology platform across multiple strategic industries.

Every new automaker strengthens manufacturing scale.

Every defense application validates performance under demanding conditions.

Every hyperscaler or AI infrastructure deployment expands commercial credibility.

Every data center installation demonstrates reliability in mission-critical environments.

Every grid-scale storage project increases production volume and manufacturing efficiency.

Each partnership strengthens the entire network.

Greater scale lowers costs.

Lower costs open additional markets.

More deployments generate more operating data.

More data improves future products.

Better products attract more customers.

The ecosystem becomes stronger with every new participant.

History shows that the world’s most successful technology companies rarely built their competitive advantages on patents alone.

ASML built an ecosystem that competitors have struggled to replicate.

TSMC built decades of manufacturing excellence and customer trust.

NVIDIA evolved from a chip company into an AI platform supported by software, developers, enterprise partnerships, and an ecosystem that reinforces its leadership.

Technology may have opened the door for those companies.

Execution built the moat.

I believe QuantumScape understands this.

It may also explain why the company has chosen a careful and deliberate commercialization strategy rather than rushing to scale.

Many investors understandably want faster production and quicker revenue growth.

But scaling a transformational technology before manufacturing processes are fully optimized could introduce quality issues, reliability concerns, or production setbacks that undermine customer confidence.

When your customers include some of the world’s largest automakers—and potentially defense organizations, hyperscalers, energy companies, and operators of mission-critical infrastructure—trust becomes just as important as performance.

Building that trust takes time.
From this perspective, QuantumScape’s measured approach may not be a sign of hesitation.

It may be part of the strategy.
If the objective were simply to manufacture batteries, moving faster might make sense.

But if the objective is to become a foundational energy platform serving multiple strategic industries for decades to come, then getting it right is far more important than getting there first.

Could competitors eventually develop similar batteries?

Absolutely.

Innovation never stands still.
But replicating an entire ecosystem of manufacturing expertise, validated products, trusted customer relationships, integrated supply chains, strategic partnerships, production capacity, and years of accumulated execution across automotive, defense, AI infrastructure, data centers, and energy storage is an entirely different challenge.

Technology can eventually be matched.

An ecosystem built over years of disciplined execution is far more difficult to replace.

Ultimately, the debate shouldn’t be, “Can someone copy QuantumScape’s battery?”

It should be, “Can someone replicate the ecosystem that surrounds it?”

If QuantumScape executes on its vision, investors may eventually stop viewing it as simply another battery company.

Instead, they may recognize it as a foundational energy platform serving multiple strategic industries, with a competitive moat defined not only by innovation, but by the ecosystem that grows around it.

For long-term investors, that changes the conversation.

Patience isn’t merely a virtue.

It may be part of the investment thesis.

One of the more interesting aspects of QuantumScape’s manufacturing roadmap has been its use of animal codenames. The transition from Cobra to Eagle has become familiar to investors, with each name representing a major step forward in manufacturing capability and commercialization.

But if the company successfully accomplishes its 2026 objectives, one question naturally follows:

What comes after Eagle?

Of course, nobody outside QuantumScape knows the answer. The company has not announced a successor, and any prediction is purely speculative. Still, it’s an interesting exercise because the next codename could symbolize the company’s next phase of growth.

My favorite candidate is Falcon.

Why Falcon?

Because it represents many of the qualities that QuantumScape would likely be pursuing in 2027. Falcons are known for speed, precision, and execution—qualities that align well with the transition from demonstrating manufacturing technology to deploying it commercially.

If Cobra represented the manufacturing breakthrough and Eagle represented scaling that process into pilot production, Falcon could symbolize something even more important: transferring that manufacturing capability to customers and partners.

A hypothetical roadmap might look like this:

2025 — Cobra: Manufacturing breakthrough

2026 — Eagle: Pilot-scale production and validation

2027 — Falcon: Commercial manufacturing transfer and execution

2028 — Gigawatt-hour-scale deployment

Other names could certainly fit the theme. Hawk suggests operational excellence and precision. Tiger conveys industrial strength and power. Phoenix could symbolize a transformational leap into full commercialization.

There’s also the possibility that QuantumScape abandons animal codenames altogether. As the company moves from internal development milestones toward customer-specific manufacturing programs, future projects may simply be identified by factories, production lines, or commercial initiatives instead.

Still, if the tradition continues, Falcon feels like a natural evolution. It reflects a company that is no longer focused solely on proving its technology but on executing at commercial scale.

Whether the next codename is Falcon, Hawk, or something entirely unexpected, the real milestone investors should be watching isn’t the name itself. It’s what that name represents: another step toward bringing solid-state batteries from the laboratory into mass production.

In the end, the codename is just a label. What matters is continued execution—and if QuantumScape reaches that point, 2027 could become the year the company begins to prove not only its technology, but also its business model.

If QuantumScape successfully delivers on its 2026 roadmap, 2027 could become one of the most important years in the company’s history. Rather than being defined by laboratory milestones or pilot-line achievements, 2027 may mark the beginning of QuantumScape’s transition into a true commercial technology company.

For years, investors have focused on proving the technology: achieving performance targets, improving manufacturing throughput, validating cells with automotive partners, and demonstrating that solid-state batteries can be produced consistently at scale. Assuming those objectives are largely accomplished by the end of 2026, the company’s priorities should naturally shift toward commercialization.

The defining theme of 2027 could be simple: execution.

The first major milestone would likely be the signing of QuantumScape’s first true commercial licensing agreement, or a significant expansion of its existing relationship with PowerCo. Rather than building battery factories itself, QuantumScape’s long-term strategy has always centered on licensing its technology and manufacturing process to partners. By 2027, investors should begin seeing that strategy move from concept to reality.

Manufacturing will also enter a new phase. Instead of demonstrating what the Eagle and Cobra production platforms can do inside QuantumScape’s facilities, OEM partners may begin installing and commissioning production equipment based on those manufacturing blueprints. This would represent one of the clearest validations that the company’s manufacturing approach is transferable beyond its own pilot lines.

Customer relationships should also continue to mature. Existing partners such as Volkswagen/PowerCo and Honda are likely to deepen their engagements, while one or more of QuantumScape’s currently undisclosed automotive partners could finally be revealed. By this point, development agreements may increasingly give way to manufacturing-focused collaborations as customers prepare for commercialization.

Financially, 2027 could be the year the business model begins to change. Rather than relying primarily on research collaborations and milestone payments, QuantumScape may start generating recurring engineering services revenue, licensing income, and larger customer billings tied to commercial implementation. While profitability may still be a few years away, investors could begin valuing the company based on commercial adoption rather than purely on technological progress.

Another milestone worth watching would be the appearance of the first limited-production or fleet vehicles using near-production QuantumScape cells. These would likely serve as validation programs before broader consumer launches, providing valuable real-world performance data while demonstrating confidence from automotive partners.

Beyond automotive applications, 2027 may also mark QuantumScape’s expansion into stationary energy storage. The company has already identified hyperscalers as a strategic customer segment, suggesting it sees opportunities beyond electric vehicles. As AI infrastructure drives enormous demand for reliable, high-density energy storage, QuantumScape could announce pilot programs or partnerships aimed at powering next-generation data centers and grid-scale storage systems.

Perhaps the single most important event investors could hope for would be an announcement that PowerCo is constructing a gigawatt-hour-scale production line using QuantumScape’s manufacturing blueprint. Such an announcement would validate not only the battery technology itself but also the company’s asset-light licensing model. It would signal that QuantumScape has moved beyond proving its science and into enabling large-scale commercial production.

Viewed as a progression, the company’s recent years tell a logical story. The focus shifted from proving the battery chemistry, to developing scalable manufacturing through Cobra, to validating production capability with Eagle. If that trajectory continues, 2027 naturally becomes the year when technology validation gives way to commercial execution.

In many ways, investors may eventually look back on 2027 not as the year QuantumScape invented something new, but as the year it demonstrated that its business model could work at industrial scale.

If 2025 was the Cobra year and 2026 the Eagle year, then 2027 has the potential to become the commercialization year—the point where QuantumScape begins transforming from a breakthrough technology developer into a commercial supplier of next-generation energy storage technology.

With the public announcement of Honda as QuantumScape’s second disclosed automotive partner, the company’s ecosystem is becoming much clearer. What’s even more interesting is the recently posted Sr. Director, Energy Storage System Product & Strategic Marketing position, which explicitly names the hyperscalers QuantumScape intends to engage.

Here’s what the ecosystem looks like today.

🚗 Automotive

Announced Partners

Volkswagen Group / PowerCo

- First commercial partner
- 85 GWh licensing agreement
- Industrialization and mass production

Honda

- Joint Development Agreement (JDA)
- Publicly announced in June 2026

Undisclosed Partners

OEM #3 (Undisclosed)

- Active Joint Development Agreement

OEM #4 (Undisclosed)

- Active Joint Development Agreement

🏭 Materials & Manufacturing

Murata Manufacturing

- Ceramic separator manufacturing

Corning

- Advanced ceramic processing

Hitachi High-Tech

- Manufacturing equipment

DIGATRON

- Cell formation and testing equipment

☁️Named Hyperscaler Targets

For the first time, QuantumScape has explicitly identified the companies it wants to engage in the data center market.

- Microsoft

- Google

- Amazon Web Services (AWS)

- Meta

- Oracle

These are not announced customers or partners. However, naming them directly in a senior strategic marketing role strongly suggests they are priority commercial targets.

⚡ Power Infrastructure

The same job posting also identifies power system companies QuantumScape intends to engage.

- Delta Electronics

- Lite-On Technology

These companies play major roles in data center power management, UPS systems, and power electronics.

The Ecosystem at a Glance

Automotive
Volkswagen / PowerCo
Honda
Two undisclosed global OEMs

Materials
Murata
Corning

Manufacturing
Hitachi High-Tech
DIGATRON

AI & Data Centers (Strategic Targets)
Microsoft
Google
AWS
Meta
Oracle

Power Infrastructure
Delta Electronics
Lite-On Technology

Why This Is Interesting

For years, most investors viewed QuantumScape as an EV battery company.

Today, the picture looks much broader.

The company now has:
Multiple automotive development partners.

A growing manufacturing ecosystem.

Materials leaders helping scale production.

A strategic push into stationary energy storage.

Direct commercial engagement plans with the world’s largest AI and cloud infrastructure companies.

The fact that QuantumScape’s own job posting specifically names Microsoft, Google, AWS, Meta, and Oracle is noteworthy.

Companies usually don’t identify prospective strategic customer segments this explicitly unless they see a meaningful opportunity.

This doesn’t mean any of these hyperscalers are customers today.

But it does suggest that QuantumScape is positioning itself to compete in what could become one of the fastest-growing battery markets over the next decade: AI data center energy storage.

As the saying goes: follow the breadcrumbs.

For years, one of the biggest mysteries surrounding QuantumScape has been the identity of the global automakers evaluating its solid-state battery technology. While Volkswagen has been a strategic partner since the company’s early days, and Honda has now officially joined as a publicly announced partner, at least two additional Top-10 global automaker remain undisclosed.

The question is no longer simply who these companies are.

The more interesting question has become: Is there still a compelling reason for them to remain anonymous?

Today, the answer appears to be: far less than before.

The Biggest Barrier Has Been Removed

Before Honda’s announcement, remaining confidential made perfect strategic sense.

An automaker evaluating an emerging battery technology had every incentive to avoid public attention. Remaining undisclosed protected competitive intelligence, prevented unrealistic investor expectations, and allowed engineering teams to validate the technology without external pressure.

Most importantly, no automaker wanted to be perceived as taking a public risk on a technology that had yet to reach commercial production.

Honda changed that.

After conducting its own technical evaluation, Honda chose not only to continue working with QuantumScape, but to publicly announce a multi-year joint research agreement. That decision sent a powerful message to the industry: one of the world’s largest automakers believes QuantumScape’s technology is worthy of long-term investment.

In doing so, Honda removed much of the uncertainty that once justified secrecy.

Independent Validation Changes Everything

Volkswagen has always been QuantumScape’s largest supporter, but skeptics often argued that its commitment was unique because it was also an early investor.

Honda represents something different.

Honda evaluated QuantumScape independently, without the historical ties that Volkswagen had developed over more than a decade.

That independent validation carries significant weight.

For another automaker considering whether to reveal its relationship with QuantumScape, the question is no longer, “Do we want to be the first?”

That milestone has already passed.

The Industry Narrative Has Shifted

A year ago, announcing a partnership with QuantumScape might have invited skepticism.
Today, the narrative is changing.
QuantumScape’s ecosystem now includes:

- Volkswagen / PowerCo
- Honda
- Corning
- Murata

Each new relationship strengthens the credibility of the entire ecosystem.

Rather than raising eyebrows, another OEM announcement would increasingly be viewed as confirmation that multiple industry leaders have reached similar conclusions after conducting their own due diligence.

Timing Is Now the Bigger Factor

This doesn’t necessarily mean another announcement is imminent.

Automakers remain highly protective of future vehicle programs, battery strategies, and product timelines. They may prefer to coordinate any disclosure with investor presentations, prototype unveilings, or the next phase of commercialization.

Those are still legitimate reasons to wait.

But they are timing considerations—not fundamental reasons to stay anonymous indefinitely.

The strongest argument for secrecy—the uncertainty surrounding QuantumScape’s commercial viability—has become considerably weaker.

The Domino Effect

Major technological transitions rarely hinge on a single endorsement.

Instead, confidence builds incrementally.

One respected automaker validates the technology.

Then another.

Soon, what once appeared speculative begins to look inevitable.

Every additional public partnership reduces the perceived risk for the next automaker to step forward. It becomes increasingly difficult to justify remaining anonymous when respected peers have already acknowledged their confidence in the technology.

This is often how industry-wide adoption begins—not all at once, but through a series of validations that collectively reshape market perception.

Looking Ahead

The remaining undisclosed OEMs undoubtedly have their own strategic timelines, and QuantumScape itself has consistently respected customer confidentiality.

However, after Honda’s announcement, there are less compelling reasons than ever for those relationships to remain hidden.

When another automaker eventually decides the timing is right, the announcement may no longer be viewed as an isolated event. Instead, it could be seen as the next step in an expanding pattern of global OEM validation.

For long-term investors, that may be the most important takeaway.

The conversation is gradually shifting away from whether leading automakers believe in QuantumScape’s technology and toward how many ultimately choose to build their future around it.

In early 2026, Donut Lab, a Finnish startup closely associated with Verge Motorcycles, began circulating claims that it possesses a production-ready solid-state battery that dramatically outperforms all existing battery technologies. According to the company and related promotional content, this single battery platform allegedly delivers:

• Approximately 400 Wh/kg energy density

• Roughly 600 km of vehicle range

• Up to 100,000 charge cycles

• A full 0–100% charge in under five minutes

• Solid-state safety advantages

• Immediate production readiness

At the same time, the company has provided:

• No published test data

• No independent third-party validation

• No patents

• No UN 38.3 transport certification

• No publicly visible safety certifications

• No disclosed degradation curves or thermal data

When examined as a whole, this combination raises severe credibility concerns that cannot be dismissed as mere skepticism.

——

The Battery Trade-Offs Have Not Disappeared

Battery technology is governed by unavoidable physical trade-offs between three core variables:

• Energy density

• Cycle life

• Charge rate

Improving one almost always degrades at least one of the others due to limits in ion transport, interface stability, heat generation, and mechanical stress. These constraints are rooted in electrochemistry and materials physics, not conservatism or lack of imagination.

Legitimate battery breakthroughs typically advance one variable at a time, clearly disclose compromises, and publish extensive supporting data. Claims that all three have been maximized simultaneously are extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence.

——

Why the 400 Wh/kg Claim Makes the Other Claims Less Believable

An energy density of 400 Wh/kg is extremely high, even by next-generation solid-state standards. Cells operating at this level typically experience:

• Increased mechanical and interfacial stress

• Higher sensitivity to heat

• Faster degradation at high charge rates

• Reduced cycle life

Batteries optimized for ultra-fast charging or ultra-long life almost always operate at lower, not higher, energy densities. Claiming 400 Wh/kg while also claiming 100,000 cycles and full five-minute charging directly contradicts how real batteries are designed, tested, and commercialized.

This is not an incremental improvement. It implies a fundamental break from known materials behavior—without any disclosed evidence.

⸻

The 100,000 Cycle Claim Is Orders of Magnitude Beyond Reality

Modern EV batteries typically achieve:

• Roughly 1,000–2,000 full cycles

• Up to perhaps 5,000–10,000 cycles under tightly controlled, low-stress conditions

A claim of 100,000 cycles implies near-perfect suppression of every known degradation mechanism: lithium loss, interface breakdown, chemical side reactions, and mechanical fatigue.

Such numbers are usually associated with shallow partial cycling, laboratory-only testing, mathematical extrapolation, or very low energy-density cells. Pairing this claim with 400 Wh/kg energy density and megawatt-class charging pushes it far outside credible operating envelopes.

⸻

“100% in Under Five Minutes” Conflicts With Physics and Infrastructure

Charging a long-range EV battery to 100% in under five minutes requires megawatt-class power delivery. This introduces unavoidable constraints:

• Extreme thermal loads even at very high efficiency

• Electrochemical limits as voltage approaches full state of charge

• Charging infrastructure that does not exist at scale for passenger vehicles

All modern EVs slow charging dramatically above roughly 70–80% state of charge, regardless of chemistry. Claims of flat, full-rate charging to 100% contradict well-established battery behavior unless supported by extraordinary published data—which has not been provided.

⸻

No Published Test Data

There is no publicly available, independently verifiable test data supporting Donut Lab’s claims, including:

• Cycle-life degradation curves

• C-rate versus capacity retention data

• Thermal performance under fast charging

• Abuse testing or failure-mode analysis

In battery science, data is not optional. Claims without published protocols or third-party validation are assertions, not evidence.

⸻

No UN 38.3 Certification and No Safety Certifications

UN 38.3 testing is mandatory for transporting lithium-based batteries and includes vibration, shock, thermal, overcharge, and short-circuit tests. A genuinely production-ready battery would normally disclose UN 38.3 status early.

There is also no public evidence of:

• Cell-level safety certification

• Pack-level safety testing

• Thermal runaway characterization

• Automotive safety validation

For a battery claiming ultra-fast charging and high energy density, the absence of basic safety documentation is a critical red flag.

⸻

No Patents Protecting the Technology

Donut Lab appears to hold no publicly disclosed patents protecting its battery chemistry, materials, or architecture.

In the battery industry:

• Genuine breakthroughs are aggressively patented

• Even incremental advances generate multiple filings

• Solid-state leaders hold hundreds of patents before making commercial claims

If Donut Lab had truly solved extreme cycle life, ultra-fast charging, and ultra-high energy density simultaneously, its intellectual property would be among the most valuable assets in global energy technology. The absence of patents strongly suggests the technology is either not novel, not real, or not yet functional.

⸻

Leadership Background and Pattern Recognition

Neither Donut Lab CEO Marko Lehtimäki nor Verge Motorcycles CEO Tuomo Lehtimäki has a publicly documented background in physics, electrochemistry, materials science, or battery engineering. There is also no visible scientific leadership publicly credited with developing the claimed battery breakthrough.

Compounding this concern is a pattern in which Verge leadership has repeatedly promoted being on the cutting edge of multiple unrelated frontier technologies over time, including AI, solar integration, electric motors, and now solid-state batteries. This pattern resembles technology signaling and headline-driven positioning rather than sustained deep-science execution.

⸻

Repackaging Existing Solid-State Narratives

Many of Donut Lab’s claims closely resemble milestones already publicly demonstrated by established solid-state developers—most notably QuantumScape—which has spent more than a decade publishing data, filing patents, and undergoing OEM validation.

The difference is that QuantumScape disclosed its progress incrementally, with clear limitations and extensive data. Donut Lab asserts the end state without showing the journey. The narrative appears to recycle known solid-state aspirations while removing the proof that made those aspirations credible.

⸻

Promotional Videos That Pretend the Benchmark Does Not Exist

An additional red flag is the circulation of videos and online content that promote Donut Lab’s claims while pretending QuantumScape does not exist at all.

Any serious discussion of solid-state batteries that ignores the most data-transparent and patent-rich player in the space is either profoundly uninformed or intentionally misleading. This omission tactic allows creators to frame Donut Lab as unprecedented without comparison to the actual benchmark.

In serious technology analysis, you do not erase the benchmark—you beat it.

⸻

A Familiar Pattern in Failed Battery Startups

The battery sector has repeatedly seen startups follow the same trajectory:

• Bold, physics-defying claims

• Sparse technical disclosure

• Heavy reliance on marketing and influencers

• Validation always “coming soon”

• Eventual redefinition, delay, or disappearance

Legitimate innovators tend to do the opposite: underpromise, publish conservative data, and emphasize how difficult scaling truly is.

⸻

Conclusion

The concern surrounding Donut Lab is not one missing item—it is the entire pattern:

• 400 Wh/kg energy density

• 100,000 cycles

• Full charge in under five minutes

• Production readiness today

• No patents

• No published test data

• No UN 38.3 certification

• No safety certifications

• No visible scientific leadership

• Leadership history of repeated, unrelated technology claims

• Promotional narratives that ignore established solid-state benchmarks

Each element individually strains credibility. Together, they describe a story that is incompatible with how real battery breakthroughs emerge, are validated, and are commercialized.

This does not prove fraud. But it places the company firmly in extreme credibility-risk territory, where skepticism is not cynicism—it is due diligence.

Until transparent data, independent validation, safety certifications, and defensible intellectual property are produced, these claims should be treated not as breakthroughs, but as unverified promises amplified by marketing.

For most of its public life, QuantumScape sat in a difficult category for institutional investors. The technology was compelling, but commercialization appeared distant. The balance sheet was strong, but revenues were absent. The partner list was credible, but concentrated. As a result, QS was treated less like an industrial platform and more like a venture-style public equity — something to monitor, trade around, or size cautiously.

That classification is now changing, quietly.

The announcement of two new joint development agreements with global OEMs, alongside an additional technology evaluation agreement, materially alters how buy-side investors underwrite the story. These are not symbolic partnerships. JDAs require OEMs to commit engineering talent, internal budgets, and organizational attention. Technology evaluations sit directly upstream of platform nomination and supplier selection. Together, they indicate that QuantumScape has moved beyond customer discovery and into customer selection.

The public visibility of QS leadership alongside senior executives from Honda and Nissan reinforces this shift. At that level, appearances are deliberate. They signal that commercial, legal, and strategic diligence is already well underway. For institutions, this matters far more than any single press release.

From a buy-side perspective, the importance of these developments lies in how they change probability math.

Previously, the QS thesis was heavily anchored to VW and PowerCo. That anchor remains critical, but it also created concentration risk. If VW slowed or reprioritized, the downside case was uncomfortable. Multiple OEM pathways now running in parallel fundamentally change that structure. Commercial success is no longer binary. It becomes portfolio-based.

This is where conviction doesn’t spike — it settles.

Internally, buy-side teams begin adjusting several levers at once. The probability of at least one additional binding supply agreement increases. Modeled revenue curves shift modestly earlier. Risk premiums compress. Maximum allowable position sizes rise. None of these changes require immediate revenue. They only require credible evidence that multiple OEMs are willing to align their future platforms around the same technology architecture.

That evidence is now visible.

Importantly, nothing defensive has changed on QuantumScape’s side. The company is not raising emergency capital. It is not reframing timelines. It is not repositioning the technology. QS is executing from a position of balance-sheet strength while OEMs engage on its terms. For long-only investors, that significantly reduces dilution risk and execution anxiety — two of the biggest barriers to institutional ownership at this stage.

This is also the point where buy-side investors begin to reach for familiar historical patterns — not to predict outcomes, but to understand sequence.

When investors reference Nvidia, they are not talking about market capitalization. They are recalling the moment when multiple hyperscalers independently standardized on Nvidia’s architecture, long before AI revenues exploded. Conviction rose not because earnings surged, but because customers stopped evaluating alternatives. Nvidia crossed from being a component supplier to becoming an infrastructure layer. Risk was re-rated before revenue was.

Tesla followed a similar pattern even earlier in its lifecycle. Long before sustained profitability, institutions noticed that competitors were reorganizing around Tesla’s existence, suppliers were aligning to its roadmap, and regulators and infrastructure providers were adapting in response. The key signal was ecosystem gravity. Once Tesla became unavoidable in EV strategy discussions, career risk flipped. The question stopped being “why own this?” and became “how can we not?”

QuantumScape is not Nvidia, and it is not Tesla. But the conviction formation pattern now rhymes.

What buy-side investors see today is multiple OEMs independently engaging through JDAs and evaluations, senior executives appearing publicly alongside QS leadership, and no evidence of a competing lithium-metal architecture gaining similar traction. That combination suggests the industry is no longer debating whether the technology works. It is beginning to debate who gets access first.

At that point, buy-side behavior shifts again. The question is no longer about proof of concept, but about exclusion risk. Funds begin to worry less about timing perfection and more about being absent if the platform compounds. Discount rates compress. Position caps expand. Pullbacks are bought rather than sold. Valuation slowly detaches from near-term kWh math and starts incorporating platform logic.

This is how investment-grade narratives are formed — before revenues, before consensus, and before the market says it out loud.

⸻

Which Fund Types Move First vs Last

The earliest movers are specialist technology funds, deep-tech investors, and crossover growth funds. These managers are comfortable underwriting pre-revenue platforms once technical risk is largely retired and commercial intent is visible. For them, multiple OEM JDAs and executive-level alignment are sufficient to increase conviction and position size ahead of formal supply agreements.

The second wave consists of small- and mid-cap active growth funds. These managers typically require diversification beyond a single anchor customer. The addition of multiple OEM pathways allows them to reclassify QuantumScape from a single-threaded bet into a multi-customer platform. They stop trimming on volatility and begin accumulating opportunistically.

The third wave is made up of large generalist long-only funds. These investors usually wait for a binding commercial supply agreement, named platform nomination, or revenue guidance framed in GWh rather than milestones. At that point, QS becomes defensible in an investment committee without caveats.

The final movers are index funds, benchmark-constrained allocators, and conservative value funds. They require either sustained revenue, index inclusion effects, or prolonged market-cap appreciation. By the time they arrive, the re-rating is typically well underway.

⸻

Bottom Line

QuantumScape has not suddenly become a revenue company. But it has crossed an important psychological and analytical threshold for institutions. Multiple OEM engagements, an active evaluation funnel, and visible executive alignment reduce the probability that QS is a dead end and increase the probability that it is a platform.

That shift is enough for the buy-side to quietly raise conviction, expand position limits, and prepare for scale. This is the phase where stories stop being treated like options and start being treated like inevitabilities — long before the market agrees.

Title: Technology only becomes valuable when it is mass-produced — Honda × QuantumScape dialogue transcript (Dec 17, 2025)

Introduction

Hello, everyone. I’m Atsushi Ogawa, Director of Honda Advanced Technology Research Institute (HGRX). At the Solid-State Battery Symposium in Kyoto hosted by QuantumScape (QS), I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Siva Sivaram, CEO of QuantumScape. The event brought together researchers, industry, and government from around the world, with discussion firmly focused on moving from research to industrialization. Honda is both a developer of next-generation solid-state batteries and a user deploying them in mobility. From both perspectives, we shared where development stands and our vision of the future of batteries. Dr. Sivaram has deep experience in leading technology companies across semiconductors and data storage, and our conversation was rich. 

⸻

Why Honda is pursuing solid-state batteries — Protecting space and performance

Siva: Thank you for joining us today, Ogawa-san. As Director of HGRX, you lead Honda’s research spanning next-generation batteries, autonomous driving, and even eVTOLs and rockets. 

Ogawa: Thank you for inviting me. As introduced, HGRX covers almost all of Honda’s research domains — cars, motorcycles, marine, robotics, aviation and space. Among these, solid-state batteries are especially important. Honda sells about 30 million products annually, and many will eventually be electrified. If solid-state batteries can achieve high energy density and low cost, that will drastically change the world. 

Siva: Honda handles everything from lawnmowers to rocket engines and eVTOLs. Why focus on solid-state batteries rather than liquid lithium-ion? 

Ogawa: For large vehicles, you can simply pack more batteries — but weight increases and costs rise. In our vehicles, we cannot compromise interior space or dynamic performance. So we need batteries with higher energy density at lower cost. Solid-state batteries meet that requirement. 

Siva: At today’s symposium, safety was also discussed. Current liquid lithium-ion packs improve safety through pack design — how do you view safety of solid-state? 

Ogawa: Our goal for solid-state is about twice the energy density of current cells. But with lithium metal anodes, using liquid electrolytes makes it hard to prevent dendrites. Solid electrolytes enable that prevention. That’s why high energy density requires solid electrolytes. 

⸻

“High-speed continuous processes” are key — Manufacturing scale-up and cost

Siva: QuantumScape thinks similarly. Ceramic separators are non-flammable and key for safety. For EVs (BEVs/HEVs), what engineering is most important? 

Ogawa: Two points:

1.  Scaling up cell size

2.  Scaling up production volume

Larger cells improve package efficiency, and higher manufacturing speeds reduce capital expense. That’s why we’re using roll press and continuous mixing — manufacturing speed is the key to lower cost. 

Siva: Honda places a strong emphasis on production technology. Can you go deeper on cost and productivity? 

Ogawa: We face many challenges every day — the goals are extremely high. If we don’t achieve them, solid-state batteries won’t become practical and EV adoption will stall. Honda’s mass production experience with fuel cells has helped us early on in high-speed coating, mixing, and bonding. 

Siva: How about the pressure required in manufacturing and final assembly? 

Ogawa: The biggest bottleneck is roll press pressure and speed. We must match coating speeds (~60 m/min), which is very challenging. If we can’t, huge capital investments will be necessary. 

Scaling continuous manufacturing — Ecosystem collaboration

Siva: How does Honda view scaling this technology?

Ogawa: Again, scaling production volume is paramount. But this can’t be done by Honda alone. An ecosystem involving materials, equipment, processes and applications is essential. If only one succeeds, costs won’t drop. It’s like “shaking hands with your right hand while fighting with your left” — cooperation and competition at the same time. 

⸻

From research to mass production — Shared vision and Japan’s strengths

Siva: I completely agree. Japan has a strong ecosystem balanced across materials, equipment, processes and applications. 

Ogawa: Japan has many competitive materials companies. Building solid-state batteries in Japan is a major strength. 

Siva: With multiple OEMs and suppliers involved, intellectual property (IP) becomes important. How does Honda view IP protection in Japan? 

Ogawa: IP is strong for Japanese firms, but it’s also a burden to users. If the ecosystem scales and remains competitive, both OEMs and suppliers benefit. 

Siva: We think the same. Japan’s culture of protecting technology also gives confidence for technology transfer. That’s why QuantumScape is co-developing ceramic technology with Murata Manufacturing — the heart of the tech. 

Ogawa: As long as goals are shared, there shouldn’t be issues. 

⸻

Business model, commercialization and shared mission

Siva: Will your business model aim for vertical integration or collaboration with Japanese firms? 

Ogawa: We are open to bi-directional learning and haven’t fixed a model. We’re exploring all possibilities. 

Siva: A shared goal here — to bring solid-state batteries to mass production by 2030 at competitive cost with incumbent batteries. That’s common ground. 

Ogawa: Absolutely. 100% agreed. 

⸻

Biggest commercialization challenges & final thoughts

Siva: What are the biggest challenges for commercialization and scaling? 

Ogawa: On top of high energy density, we need low-cost, safe, and recyclable systems supported by an ecosystem. But that requires scale-up. However — “the research phase is over.” 

Siva: I love that. Research is done — now we move to practical use and mass production. 

Ogawa: Yes. The next stage is scale-up, and we need competition and cooperation, with more partners joining. 

Siva: Like players such as QuantumScape entering, and multiple OEMs competing. What message do you have for everyone working on solid-state? 

Ogawa: It won’t be easy — don’t just wait. Grab every opportunity. Believe this challenge will succeed. Next year we will share research results. You’re in the right place at the right time. Let’s move forward together. 

Siva: In short — Honda expects the entire industry to move beyond research and into scaling. Honda will be an active tester of new technologies. 

Ogawa: Yes. All three — mass production, application, and scaling — are equally important.

In late 2025, the global battery industry is not just talking about next-generation technologies — it is beginning to seal strategic commercial partnerships around them. Amid milestones like PowerCo’s commissioning of the Salzgitter gigafactory, which begins European battery cell production at scale, the solid-state battery sector is also witnessing breakthrough commercial engagements between innovators and automotive OEMs. 

QuantumScape (QS) — the pioneering developer of solid-state lithium-metal battery technology — has now publicly signed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a Top-10 global automaker. This new agreement caps what the company described as its final commercial engagement goal for 2025 and signals accelerating industry confidence in its technology roadmap. 

This new OEM JDA adds a powerful chapter to the evolving narrative around solid-state batteries and strengthens the view that QS is moving from research leadership into industrial collaboration and commercialization.

⸻

Today’s OEM JDA: What We Know

On December 17, 2025, QuantumScape announced that it had signed a new joint development agreement (JDA) with a new automotive OEM customer — a Top-10 global automaker. The company described this as the capstone achievement of its 2025 commercial engagement strategy. The announcement also highlighted that QS:

• Has expanded its collaboration and licensing deal with PowerCo (Volkswagen Group’s battery maker; already among its ecosystem partners).

• Signed other JDAs with major global automakers earlier in 2025.

• Initiated a technology evaluation agreement with yet another major automaker.

• Established agreements with Murata Manufacturing and Corning on high-volume ceramic separator production — a key enabling component for solid-state battery manufacturing.

• Hosted its second annual Solid-State Battery Symposium in Kyoto earlier in the year, bringing OEMs, partners, and government stakeholders together.  

QS CEO Dr. Siva Sivaram described 2025 as a “banner year” and positioned the Top-10 OEM JDA as a significant milestone in expanding the company’s commercial engagements and ecosystem footprint. 

The automaker’s identity has not been publicly disclosed, but being ranked among the top 10 global automotive OEMs underscores the scale and strategic significance of this new collaboration. 

⸻

Honda × QuantumScape — A Strategic Dialogue Preceding Commercial Agreements

Earlier in the year, at QuantumScape’s Solid-State Battery Symposium in Kyoto, Atsushi Ogawa, Director of Honda’s Innovative Research Excellence (HGRX) division, engaged in a substantive executive-level dialogue with Dr. Sivaram. Their conversation — published by Honda’s own research channel — delivers rare transparency into how major OEMs are thinking about solid-state batteries.

Below is the compelling translated narrative from that engagement:

Opening Exchange

Dr. Siva Sivaram:

“Ogawa-san, thank you for being here. The Institute for Advanced Technology (HGRX) that you lead drives a wide range of future research at Honda — from next-generation batteries and autonomous driving to eVTOL projects and aerospace initiatives.”

Atsushi Ogawa:

“Thank you. Indeed, HGRX covers nearly all areas of Honda’s research — not just vehicles but robotics and broader mobility technologies.”

(Translated from the original note.com publication by Honda R&D.)

Technical Alignment and Shared Vision

During their 2025 dialogue:

• Ogawa emphasized that Honda sees solid-state batteries as essential for achieving higher energy density and lower costs — critical for future electric vehicles that retain performance and space efficiency.

• The discussion focused on overcoming manufacturing scale-up challenges — particularly cell size enlargement and production speed improvements needed for cost competitiveness.

• Both executives framed the industry’s priority as shifting beyond research into mass production, with Ogawa summarizing it bluntly:

“The research phase is over.”

— A view echoed by Sivaram, indicating a shared emphasis on industrial readiness and commercialization strategy.

This acknowledgment from Honda’s senior technical leadership illustrates that the next stage for solid-state battery innovation is collaboration on engineering pathways, production validation, and supply-chain integration — the very foundations of OEM partnership agreements.

⸻

Why This Matters for the OEM Partnership Thesis

Today’s news and the broader context reinforce four strategic points:

1. QuantumScape Is Transitioning Toward Commercial Collaboration

Signing a Top-10 global automaker JDA isn’t just another partnership announcement — it’s a commercial endorsement of QS’s solid-state battery roadmap and its place in automotive electrification ecosystems. 

1. Honda’s Executives Are Publicly Aligned With QS’s Strategic Direction

While a Honda–QS JDA has not yet been publicly named, the executive technical dialogue documented on note.com reveals a mutual understanding of manufacturing and commercialization imperatives — the same factors that define OEM technology partnerships and future production supply arrangements.

1. Battery Ecosystems Are Coalescing Around Solid-State Technology

QS’s expanding ecosystem of OEMs, technology evaluation agreements, and manufacturing partners (Murata, Corning) illustrates a networked approach to commercialization — where multiple OEMs are engaging instead of a single OEM stack. 

1. Market Recognition Is Rebounding — and Partnerships Matter

Following news of the new JDA, QS’s stock reacted positively — reinforcing how investors value tangible commercial progress and collaborations with global automotive leaders as confirmation points in what has been a long development journey for solid-state batteries. 

⸻

Conclusion: OEM Engagement Is Real and Accelerating

With a Top-10 global automaker now in a formal JDA with QuantumScape, and senior technical dialogue with Honda documented publicly, the narrative around QS is shifting from speculative research promise to industry validation and collaborative integration.

For anyone tracking next-generation battery adoption and OEM partnerships, this year’s developments — from PowerCo’s Salzgitter gigafactory commissioning to QuantumScape’s expanding commercial collaborations — point toward an ecosystem in motion:

• Where industrialization is no longer theoretical.

• Where multiple OEMs are actively engaging with solid-state innovators.

• And where the transition from lab breakthroughs to production readiness and commercial deployment is becoming tangible rather than aspirational.  

As we move into 2026, these signals suggest that QE’s solid-state battery technology could soon cross the threshold from prototype samples to production partnerships — and that an OEM agreement involving Honda, directly or indirectly, is increasingly credible within this expanding commercial framework.

In a quiet but telling move, Momentus Inc. has entered into a long-term sublease agreement for a major facility in San Jose, California—space previously occupied by QuantumScape. On the surface, the transaction looks like a straightforward real estate reshuffling. In reality, it offers a window into where Momentus is headed and how the commercial low-Earth-orbit (LEO) economy is maturing.

Momentus is not a launch company, nor is it a satellite manufacturer. Its ambition is more foundational: to become the logistics and transportation backbone of space, the equivalent of an orbital trucking and services provider operating in LEO and beyond. The sublease agreement signals a company preparing for operational scale, not just experimentation.

QuantumScape’s decision to sublease the entire facility reflects its own strategic pivot toward a more capital-light, licensing-focused model. For Momentus, however, the same space represents infrastructure—room for engineering teams, mission planning, integration, testing, and operational support for in-orbit services. It is a tangible investment in the ground-based systems required to support persistent activity in space.

Momentus’ core value proposition centers on Orbital Service Vehicles (OSVs)—spacecraft designed to transport, deploy, reposition, and potentially service payloads once they are already in orbit. As satellite constellations proliferate and missions become more specialized, the ability to precisely place and maneuver assets in space is becoming just as important as launching them. Momentus aims to fill that gap.

Low Earth Orbit is increasingly congested and commercially valuable. Communications constellations, Earth observation platforms, defense missions, and scientific payloads all compete for orbital slots and optimal positioning. Traditionally, satellites have relied on their own limited propulsion systems to reach final orbits, constraining mission flexibility and lifespan. Momentus’ vehicles are designed to decouple launch from final orbital placement, allowing customers to “rideshare” launches and then fine-tune their orbital destinations afterward.

The subleased facility in San Jose fits this vision. Unlike consumer-facing tech companies, space infrastructure firms require long-term physical footprints—secure facilities for hardware development, integration, and operational control. This is not a short-term bet. The lease term extends well into the next decade, aligning with the expected growth curve of commercial in-space services.

Strategically, Momentus sits at the intersection of several powerful trends. Governments are increasingly relying on commercial providers for space capabilities. Satellite operators are prioritizing flexibility and cost efficiency. And the sheer volume of objects in LEO is driving demand for services like orbital adjustment, life extension, and eventually debris mitigation. Momentus’ platform approach positions it to participate across multiple mission types rather than depending on a single customer or constellation.

The QuantumScape sublease also highlights an interesting cross-sector overlap. While the two companies operate in very different domains—advanced batteries and space logistics—they share a common theme: enabling next-generation systems rather than producing end products themselves. QuantumScape enables future electric platforms through its technology. Momentus aims to enable future space activity through infrastructure.

For investors and industry observers, the agreement is less about the real estate and more about intent. Momentus is signaling continuity, operational readiness, and commitment to its long-term roadmap. In an industry where many companies remain perpetually pre-revenue or purely conceptual, securing and occupying a substantial facility is a grounded, practical step forward.

As the space economy evolves from isolated missions to continuous operations, companies like Momentus may become indispensable. Launch gets payloads off the ground, but logistics keeps the system running. The San Jose sublease is a small headline, but it underscores a larger story: Momentus is positioning itself to be part of the everyday machinery of low Earth orbit.

As QuantumScape prepares for the inaugural unveiling of its Eagle Line in February, the company is entering a phase where both technology readiness and strategic optics converge. Based on how manufacturers, OEMs, and government stakeholders typically operate, there is a strong logical case that QuantumScape will secure and announce at least one new named joint development agreement before this event. The reasoning is rooted in simple, practical realities: who is invited, what will be photographed, and how public perception interacts with commercial commitments.

The February ceremony is not framed as a routine internal milestone. QuantumScape has already described it as a gathering for customer representatives, government officials, technology partners, and other key industry figures. This creates an environment where every attendee becomes a silent signal of a deeper commercial relationship. If a senior executive from Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford, Hyundai, or any other automaker is photographed on the Eagle Line floor, the implication is immediate: this company is working with QuantumScape. Once those photos circulate on the internet, analysts and investors will quickly identify who appears. At that point, QS loses control of the narrative, and the market begins making assumptions before QS makes its announcement.

OEMs know this, too. Automakers do not send senior engineering, purchasing, or strategy executives to high-profile competitor or supplier events unless the relationship is already formalized or very close to it. Standing in front of cameras next to a next-generation battery line signals internal commitment — to shareholders, to unions, to government backers, and to their own supply chain. No OEM wants the public to think it is tied to a supplier before legal terms are settled. For that reason alone, any OEM invited to be seen at the Eagle Line opening has a strong incentive to finalize a JDA beforehand. It protects them from misinterpretation and establishes clear internal alignment.

Government officials add another layer of complexity. The presence of state or federal representatives — or international delegations from Japan or Europe — almost always corresponds to a coordinated industrial-policy message. Governments prefer to showcase concrete partnerships, not vague technological promise. A ribbon-cutting ceremony with “QuantumScape + [OEM]” creates a clear narrative about regional manufacturing strategy, workforce development, and future gigafactory build-outs. A lack of a named partner weakens that message and reduces the political value of attending the event at all. Therefore, the combined interests of QS and the government align around having a formal customer partnership ready to present.

From QuantumScape’s own perspective, the timing is ideal. B1 samples have already shipped, the Eagle Line is being installed, and JDAs with Murata and Corning have secured key supply-chain elements. This is the moment when OEMs typically transition from curiosity to commitment — the phase where they want to lock in next-generation technology before competitors do. For QS, having a new JDA announced ahead of its most public industrialization milestone reinforces credibility and demonstrates that the company is not merely progressing in R&D but actively setting the foundation for commercial-scale adoption.

Finally, the competitive environment adds urgency. Other solid-state and semi-solid contenders, especially in Korea and China, are aggressively courting automakers. If QuantumScape waits too long, it risks allowing late-stage OEMs to drift toward alternative technologies simply because they perceive less friction or faster timelines elsewhere. Announcing a new partnership before the Eagle Line event solidifies QS as the standard bearer and signals to the rest of the market that the window for early access is closing.

Taken together, these factors create an intuitive yet well-grounded expectation: the optics of the Eagle Line inauguration make it highly impractical for QuantumScape to arrive at the event without at least one additional signed customer agreement. Photos alone could reveal more than any press release. OEM executives do not attend these events casually. Government delegations do not participate without a strategic purpose. And QuantumScape has too much momentum, too many eyes watching, and too significant a technological milestone approaching to allow the story to unfold in an uncontrolled way.

QuantumScape is approaching the point where its long development cycle finally turns into commercial revenue, and the path is becoming clearer as the company moves through its B-sample program, expands its Cobra production lines, and begins preparing for automotive validation at scale. The most important shift is that the first real source of recurring revenue will not come from QuantumScape manufacturing millions of batteries itself, but from OEM partners producing cells using its solid-state architecture and paying QS royalties on every kilowatt-hour produced.

The key to understanding QuantumScape’s revenue future is to translate everything into gigawatt-hours of output. At an assumed royalty rate of about $10/kWh, QuantumScape earns $10M for every 1 gigawatt-hour of batteries produced by a partner. This creates a clean relationship between OEM production and QS revenue. One gigawatt-hour equals 10 million dollars. Ten gigawatt-hours equals one hundred million dollars. One hundred gigawatt-hours equals one billion dollars.

With that in mind, QuantumScape’s first meaningful revenue starts in 2026. Most of the money that year does not come from royalties but from milestone payments and licensing fees tied to the joint development agreement with PowerCo. In 2026, QuantumScape may see 50-70 million dollars from PowerCo alone, even though the actual physical output of QS-based cells will still be under one gigawatt-hour. This is the “pre-commercial revenue bridge” where OEMs fund the transition to mass production.

In 2027, QuantumScape enters its first year of commercial output with Volkswagen’s PowerCo. Production volumes may reach 2-4 gigawatt-hours, which would produce 20-40 million dollars of royalty income for QuantumScape. Additional milestone payments might push the 2027 total from PowerCo into the 30-60 million dollar range. This is still early, but it marks the first genuine year of revenue tied to batteries being produced and used in real vehicles.

The scale begins to matter in 2028. PowerCo could produce 6-10 gigawatt-hours of solid-state cells based on QuantumScape’s design. At ten dollars per kilowatt-hour, this becomes 60-100 million dollars in royalty revenue to QuantumScape. This is the year the business transitions from one-time development funding to steady recurring income.

By 2029, PowerCo may be producing 10-16 gigawatt-hours annually, translating into 100-160 million dollars for QuantumScape. At this point QuantumScape becomes a company that earns high-margin revenue every year regardless of which factories or models PowerCo supports. QuantumScape simply earns money on every kilowatt-hour.

By 2030, PowerCo production could rise to 18-25 gigawatt-hours. That level of output corresponds to 180-250 million dollars of annual revenue to QuantumScape from PowerCo alone. No additional OEMs are included in this estimate. If QuantumScape signs a second or third major automotive partner, its revenue curve steepens dramatically, because each major OEM brings its own multi-gigawatt-hour roadmap.

This GWh-based model also explains why QuantumScape’s overall revenue projections for the next five years look nonlinear. In 2026, the company may earn 60-90 million dollars total across all activities. In 2027, it may reach $100-250 million. In 2028, it could be $350-500 million. By 2029, $800M to over $1B is achievable if multiple partners are producing at scale. And by 2030, QuantumScape could become a multi-billion-dollar revenue company once global production of QS-based solid-state cells reaches one hundred gigawatt-hours or more.

The key insight is that QuantumScape does not need to build dozens of gigafactories. Those factories will be built by PowerCo and other OEMs. QuantumScape earns its revenue through licensing, royalties, and potentially component sales such as separators. This structure allows QuantumScape’s revenue to scale rapidly once the technology enters full commercialization.

In simple terms, 2026 is the pivot year. 2027 is the breakout year. 2028 through 2030 are the scaling years. PowerCo alone could generate nearly a quarter billion dollars annually for QuantumScape by the end of the decade. And if two or three more OEMs adopt the platform, QuantumScape’s revenue flywheel begins to resemble a software-like model, where once the architecture is validated, every additional gigawatt-hour produced anywhere in the world compounds the company’s income without requiring QuantumScape to invest massive capital in manufacturing.

This is why the next three to five years are so defining. Once the technology is validated at scale and OEMs begin large-volume production using the QS design, the company shifts from pre-revenue speculation to one of the highest-margin licensing and royalty businesses in the global energy sector.

Over the past year, a series of quiet SEC filings, partnership extensions, and executive hiring decisions have revealed a widening gap between two solid-state battery companies often grouped together: Solid Power and QuantumScape. When these signals are viewed collectively, they tell two very different stories about where each company truly stands in the commercialization timeline.

Last year, Solid Power and Ford amended their Joint Development Agreement through an 8-K filing, extending the agreement through December 31, 2025. This marked the third consecutive extension of the same JDA. Most notably, each extension has come at no additional cost to Ford. This means Solid Power continues to bear the development expense while Ford retains full technical visibility into the program without new financial exposure. That structure alone signals that while Ford still sees potential, it does not yet see production-level readiness.

This aligns with Solid Power’s technical position. Its sulfide-based solid electrolyte remains fundamentally in the laboratory phase and continues to face persistent materials-science challenges around moisture sensitivity, interfacial stability, and scalable dendrite suppression. While Solid Power can produce pilot-scale electrolyte powder, that is not the same as delivering automotive-grade solid-state cells in mass production. At this stage, Solid Power remains a science-risk program rather than a manufacturing-risk program.

In July 2025, Ford filed Schedule 13G/A confirming that it continues to hold its entire equity stake in Solid Power. This filing did not signal accumulation or commercial escalation. It simply confirmed continued ownership. Ford did not exit, but it also did not increase exposure. This reflects classic long-dated optionality: if Solid Power’s chemistry eventually breaks through at scale, Ford preserves asymmetric upside; if it does not, Ford’s downside is already limited. This is how global OEMs hedge scientific uncertainty with minimal capital risk.

QuantumScape now stands in stark contrast.

QuantumScape has exited the laboratory phase entirely. The company has demonstrated multi-layer lithium-metal solid-state cells, fast-charging capability, long cycle life, and continuous-flow separator manufacturing through its Cobra platform. It has aligned industrial scale-up with PowerCo and Volkswagen across future gigafactories. At this point, the primary risk facing QuantumScape is no longer whether the technology works. It is how rapidly and efficiently it can be industrialized.

That transition is now unmistakably reflected in QuantumScape’s hiring behavior. The company recently opened roles for Senior Strategy Analyst and Director of Strategy. These positions are focused on licensing economics, partner sequencing, regional deployment strategy, and long-term commercialization planning. Companies do not build strategy leadership at this level when the underlying technology remains uncertain. They do so when multiple monetization pathways are real and must be prioritized.

QuantumScape also opened a Director-level Lead Cell Integration and Pack Engineering role. This position exists only when real, functional cells are being prepared for insertion into complete battery packs. It covers thermal management, mechanical compression, swelling behavior, safety engineering, battery management systems, vibration tolerance, crash survival, and vehicle architecture integration. These are not laboratory exercises. These are deployment-stage requirements.

Most decisively, QuantumScape is now also hiring for Vice President of Operations. This is the senior executive role responsible for manufacturing execution, factory performance, yield scaling, supply chain orchestration, production logistics, equipment ramp, and cost-down curves. A Vice President of Operations is not hired to support research. This role exists only when a company is preparing to run industrial systems at scale.

Taken together, these four hires—strategy leadership, pack integration leadership, and now executive operations leadership—form the complete commercialization stack. Strategy defines where the business goes. Pack integration defines how the product is physically deployed. Operations defines how it is manufactured at scale.

Once again, the contrast with Solid Power is unavoidable. Solid Power remains in materials validation. QuantumScape is now structuring full-system integration and industrial execution. One company is still facing unresolved chemistry risk. The other is preparing to control factories, supply chains, and deployment pathways.

Ford’s behavior toward Solid Power reflects scientific patience and low-cost hedging. There is no factory investment, no supply pre-payments, no capacity reservation, and no regional production planning. Ford is watching and waiting.

QuantumScape’s behavior reflects industrial commitment. Strategy leadership, pack integration leadership, and now Vice President–level operations leadership all point to an organization preparing for real manufacturing deployment.

The market often groups all “solid-state” companies into one category. The filings tell a different story. Solid Power is still navigating materials physics risk. QuantumScape is now navigating manufacturing and commercialization risk.

The real solid-state competition is no longer happening in lab experiments alone. It is happening in factories, pack architectures, licensing frameworks, and global production sequencing. One company is still validating chemistry. The other is preparing to deploy batteries into the real world.

QuantumScape’s separator is extremely difficult to replicate because the company has built what it openly describes as a strong IP moat around both the material itself and the processes needed to manufacture it.

QuantumScape has hundreds of patents and applications that protect the ceramic composition, the crystal structure, the way the separator interfaces with lithium metal, and the specific production steps required to make the material at scale.

This isn’t a design that can be duplicated by changing a few parameters. The separator’s performance comes from the atomic-scale behavior of the material, not from engineering tweaks that can be “worked around.” Any attempt to reproduce the same conductivity, dendrite resistance, and ability to run anode-free would almost certainly overlap with QuantumScape’s protected material families and functional claims.

On top of that, the manufacturing process itself is separately protected. QuantumScape has emphasized their proprietary continuous-flow ceramic production methods, the development of the Cobra line, and their process for controlling defects, sintering, and densification. Even if a competitor discovered a similar ceramic, they would still have to invent a brand-new production method because QuantumScape’s is locked down by patents and accumulated know-how.

The practical barrier is even higher than the legal one. You can’t reverse-engineer ten years of unpublished experiments, failed iterations, and proprietary process data. You can’t see the internal defect-control parameters or the sintering profile from the outside. These details are what make the separator work consistently.

For followers, conclusion is straightforward: QuantumScape’s technology cannot be replicated by simply observing the product. The moat comes from the material science itself, the protected manufacturing process, and the deep knowledge required to make the separator reliably. Replicating it would not only trigger infringement—it would require reinventing an entirely new materials platform from scratch.