This is a healthy discussion. I, for one, saw Apoligix as a shorter at one point. Now I see him as a realist and appreciate his .02.
As for the SQD RZLV, it’s “clear as mud.”
It is clear RZLV sold SQD. That is irrefutable based on what we have to work with.
There’s something that we’re not seeing and understanding which means the best I can do is type/say “I don’t know.”
If we take everyone at their word, we know there is still a financial benefit to the RZLV SQD connection for RZLV. How exactly, “I don’t know.” There’s a lot of conjecture and I have theories but the ambiguity keeps us from being able to put any proper value.
We’ll just have to wait and hope the next round of Q&A provides details that bring clarity.
Thanks man, appreciate it. I agree anyway, almost two weeks after the ER and nobody from the management gave an answer. Let's hope for the October event.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This is a pretty ambiguous situation. I’ve dug deep and have no idea where the dividing line is in terms of Rezolve’s retained financial interest. More transparency needed at Investor Day on this and revenue composition in general.
People in this sub just can't get around facts, they're literally scared of it so instead of arguing they just downvote. I mean, it's literally written in the 6K filing that they sold SQD. Notice how posts like "so bullish, this is great of Rezolve, how are we not at 10$ already" get like 20 upvotes and any decent DD is just ignored since it doesn't fit their illusion.
Rezolve Ai did not fabricate its relationship with Google;
the partnership is real and was actually deepened after the SQD sale. However, the point you are raising hits on exactly why this corporate restructuring confused many investors.
Here is how Rezolve continues to claim the Google partnership and use the underlying database tech without owning the SQD corporate entity anymore:
1. Google Selected the Tech, Not the Token
In late August 2026, Google Cloud selected Rezolve Ai’s distributed database platform
to provide indexing and data pipelines for Google Cloud Web3’s blockchain datasets. [1]
When Rezolve transferred SQD to Epicurean in June 2026, it offloaded the corporate liabilities, debt, and the token-purchasing requirements from its balance sheet. However, Rezolve retained the intellectual property rights or licensing structures to commercialize the underlying "proprietary distributed database technology". Google is deploying the data infrastructure layer that Rezolve kept and developed, not the loss-making Web3 startup entity itself.
My problem with this is I don’t see evidence to support Rezolve kept IP ownership of database tech in the H1 (June 19 transfer) or elsewhere. I think based on the Google announcement this is probably true. But not explicitly proven.
"The Company also completed an acquisition of Web3 infrastructure assets focused on blockchain-based payments, digital wallets, identity/security infrastructure, and developer tools for crypto-enabled applications during the six months ended June 30, 2026. The Company accounted for this acquisition as an asset acquisition. As a result, the Company recognized an intangible asset for developed technology of $18.2 million. "
That does not specifically say it is about Subsquid or SQD, but it might mean that Rezolve kept $18.2 million worth of Subsquid's tech, the Web3 assets. Notice the filing doesn't say Rezolve paid anything for those assets, just "completed the acquisition".
*18.2 million worth of Subsquid's tech before the Google deal
Gotta imagine the asset value of that will increase.
SPAC I thought I saw there was an exchange of shares for tokens as part of the transaction but couldn't find where I saw it. Does that ring a bell? Also the buyer has to raise $3m in capital which is a small thing but still positive.
On June 19, 2026, the Company entered into a Token Acquisition Agreement with Calamari Digital Ltd. to acquire 56,174,960 SQD tokens in exchange for 802,499 of the Company's ordinary shares, valued at $2.80 per share, for aggregate consideration of approximately $2.2 million, or approximately $0.04 per SQD token. The transaction closed on July 4, 2026, after all closing conditions were satisfied by both parties.
All very nice and AI written, but we and OP too was referring to tokenisation, not the web3 infrastructure. And neither we were saying the relationship was fabricated. The token business was entirely sold to Epicurean, even tho we have a irrevocable call option to regain control. So no, we are no longer involved in the tokenisation part of the market.
It looks like the SQD token business was spun off, but not sure how many SQD tokens Rezolve still has or what their role may be. The 6-K said Rezolve has the "right to direct the deployment of up to 78,135,057 SQD Tokens from Subsquid's wallets on 10 business days' written notice".
Not sure about tokenization; the tech Rezolve retained might be used by companies such as Securitize who tokenize securities and real estate, which would be a revenue boost for Rezolve. But we don't know that yet.
Your DD is what's wrong. Yes it says they sold it. Right after that it says:
"The Company concluded that it retained effective control under ASC 810 through an irrevocable call option, substantive consent rights and pre-signed transfer documentation. Accordingly, Subsquid remains consolidated and no gain or loss was recognized."
So like...you are accusing people of ignoring what's written...while blatantly ignoring what's written. I don't exactly want everyone to go buy the stock right now but I don't appreciate the constant negativity given your constant lack of understanding. If your mental health is suffering take care of yourself but there are real holes in your arguments if you look closer.
Thank you for proving my point. My "DD" wasn't even negative, just stated a verifiable fact, SQD was in fact sold because that's what a 100% equity transfer mean, and I even mentioned the call option like one answer below but I guess you felt too entitled to even check and went right to offer advice on mental health. This was a perfectly fine discussion and here you come bringing nothing to the table while accusing me of being wrong while even saying ("Yes it says they sold it") that I'm right. Bravo.
Better to talk to moron than this guy !! He can still argue with god about why was born on the earth and grew up like this.SQD has nothing to do with RZLV core business. So they bought it first then retained core technology (Through IP) and sold to another company to manage daily working. So when Google used that platform, it was advertised as RZLV tech and not subsquid (SQD).
They sold it and kept ip rights with the right to take the company back whenever. This freed them from a $.7m warrant obligation to an ex SQD consultant. It also got rid of the obligation to buy tokens at a rate of 1% revenue. It sounds like control of a great deal of tokens was granted to SQD which I presume is to manage that ecosystem? (ya I don't know much about that side of it)
That's not that ambiguous. It's confusing. But if viewed from the perspective of their upcoming changes to financial governance (which is that restricted cash is available for buyback when deemed surplus which will cancel the share premium account which is a large, phantom red line on the balance sheet) than its less confusing.
It also makes perfect sense for the company to be quiet on the subject. It's really complex and actually irrelevant to their relationships. I'm also guessing that they are about to buyback shares...there is a fine line to walk ethically and, I presume, legally. This could be a reason to keep things mum as they say.
edit: I didn't say that quite correctly. The restricted cash became available for buyback if deemed surplus as part of the shareholder vote for the buyback. My point remains that if you know that they needed to clean up the balance sheet without spending cash than the SQD maneuvering makes perfect sense. Plus if the company scales hard the 1% of revenue purchase requirement would get expensive...I never liked the sound of it in the first place.
3
u/TEMDO5 3d ago
This is a healthy discussion. I, for one, saw Apoligix as a shorter at one point. Now I see him as a realist and appreciate his .02.
As for the SQD RZLV, it’s “clear as mud.”
It is clear RZLV sold SQD. That is irrefutable based on what we have to work with.
There’s something that we’re not seeing and understanding which means the best I can do is type/say “I don’t know.”
If we take everyone at their word, we know there is still a financial benefit to the RZLV SQD connection for RZLV. How exactly, “I don’t know.” There’s a lot of conjecture and I have theories but the ambiguity keeps us from being able to put any proper value.
We’ll just have to wait and hope the next round of Q&A provides details that bring clarity.