SGRX packaged undelivered B300 receiving rights. DUOT named the layers. Neither is yet a GPU-rent income statement.
02
Thesis
Same split technique. Different evidence thickness.
SGRX
APA for 16 B300 receiving rights. $1M cash + $10M stated warrants. Manager, Malaysia facility, and customers unnamed. Still not delivered.
vs
DUOT
Own Edge DC + SPV holds 2,304 B300s + named Hydra + USD.AI $98.1M. Prepay on the books. Hosting/GPUaaS revenue still near zero.
CYPH already used pre-funded warrants for equipment and hosting. SGRX applies the playbook to not-yet-delivered Blackwell rights and pre-delivery guidance.
03
Article architecture
Paper rights, then named layers, then the ruler
01
SGRX
Shell history, DAT substance, APA rights package, unnamed outsourcing.
02
DUOT
Four-layer split: facility, SPV, Hydra, USD.AI — and the P&L lag.
03
The ruler
Who signed, which line the money entered, what remains unnamed.
04
Chapter 01
SGRX
A Cayman micro-cap path of changing businesses, ending in undelivered GPU rights — not racks already powered on.
1.1 Company history and management
1.2 Current business: substance is DAT
1.3 The B300 APA in transition
1.4 The four-sentence APA model
05
Chapter 1 · History
Pork, mining, DOGE, then a rights package
PLIN
Nasdaq pork processor
BTOG
Food spin-off ~$1M; BTC mining
Mines off
U.S. sites shut; later mining revenue $0
DAT
~70.5M DOGE; dual-class 20 votes
APA
16× B300 rights; $1M + $10M warrants
SGRX
Still not delivered; no delivery 6-K
CFO vacant since 2024-03. Jinghai Jiang holds CEO + COO + Chairman. Class A are bystanders under dual-class.
06
Chapter 1 · Current status
The real asset is DOGE, not compute
$0H1 operating revenue
$0.48MPeriod-end cash
$8.27MDOGE FV at 2025-12-31
$(1.8M)Shareholders’ equity deficit
Pork spun off. Mining shut. Aethir sales-rep FY25 net ~$39k, H1 $0. “$500M financing capacity” is convertible + EPFA ceilings, not cash received. Blended DOGE cost ~$0.227 vs FV ~$0.117.
07
Chapter 1 · What the APA bought
Closing bought rights, not racks
Written into the APA
16× B300 including in-transit/receiving rights. Interests in customer and hosting contracts. Related rights.
vs
Confirmable from filings
2026-08-05 still not delivered, not deployed. Customers not filed. “Malaysia” is PR/MD&A, not EX-10.1. Indemnity cap $1M, no escrow.
Seller: PT Mitra Manunggal Sangkara (David Tedjo, PIK2). No related-party disclosure. Not claimed as an NVIDIA Partner. “Sixteen (16)” is in the 6-K/PR, not APA §1.01 body.
08
Chapter 1 · Consideration
$1M cash. $10M paper.
Cash$1.0M · 9%
Warrants$10.0M stated · 91%
Cash / unit$62,500
Incl. paper$687,500 / unit
6,457,863 Class A pre-funded warrants @ $0.00006. Blocker 4.99% raisable to 9.99%. No S-3 rights. Restricted securities. $10M is contract stated value, not a third-party appraisal.
09
Chapter 1 · Operations and guidance
The execution layer is a blank
PR says
Five-year third-party management. Malaysia facility. ~$360k/mo recurring after deployment, before opex.
vs
Exhibit does not
Management Agreement (Exhibit C) not attached. Rates, waterfall, SLA undisclosed. Customer names not filed. 8 GPU/unit is a research assumption.
Implied ~$3.85/GPU-h at 100% utilization, ~$5.50 at 70%, 730h/month. Arithmetic on guidance, not realized revenue. Research window through 2026-09-07: no delivery 6-K.
10
Chapter 1 · APA model
A rights package, not a rental business
Subject
Undelivered receiving rights + unnamed contract interests.
Consideration
Small cash + large pre-funded warrants.
Operations
Claimed five-year third party. Person not named. Agreement not exhibited.
Narrative
Revenue guidance before delivery. $360k/mo before opex.
11
Chapter 1 · What “closed” looks like
Paper in hand. Crates not.
Adding $10M warrant “value” into equity to meet Nasdaq tests is management belief / PR, not an audited balance sheet.
Upgrade to “assets on balance sheet, revenue recognized” still needs a delivery 6-K, identifiable PPE, and revenue evidence that does not depend on unnamed contracts.
12
Chapter 02
DUOT
The mode that most resembles what SGRX claims post-delivery: hold the cards, outsource commercialization — with named entities.
2.1 History and team
2.2 Four-layer GPU split
2.3 Business estimates vs model
2.4 SGRX versus DUOT
13
Chapter 2 · History
Rail vision to an Edge balance sheet
Nasdaq DUOT
Chuck Ferry CEO; rail inspection lineage
Duos Edge AI
Doug Recker builds modular edge DCs
$27.0M revenue
~83% APR/AMA energy remnant; Hosting $56k
Hydra + USD.AI
~$65M equity; $55M RD; cash to $112M
Rail spun off
Statements closer to Edge / Tech Solutions
14
Chapter 2 · Four-layer split
Title, facility, sales, and debt are different parties
Hydra
External operator. Sells compute to still-unnamed end customers. Takes the small-end revenue share.
SPV
GPUaaS LLC holds GPU title. Customer prepay $18.77M sits here as contract liability. Parent pledges SPV equity.
USD.AI
External $98.1M facility, collateralized by SPV GPUs. Expected to close after delivery and install.
Edge AI
Consolidated facility owner. Same Columbus shell serves the Hydra GPU package and pure colo (IG / Axe / Nistar).
15
Chapter 2 · Physical layer
Duos sells racks. Only some of them hold its cards.
Hydra / SPV package
2,304× B300 in Columbus. Title in GPUaaS LLC. Facility ops by Duos Edge. Attached colo narrative 4.3+ MW.
vs
External colo
IG >$111M / 10 MW / 5 years. Nistar up to 2 MW. Axe 55 MW term sheet, non-binding. Campus contracted ~20 MW.
Under the Columbus 20 MW narrative, about half the power is already sold as customer-owned-GPU colo. Self-held GPU package is the special case, not the whole growth story.
16
Chapter 2 · Asset layer
The box holds the cards. The parent pledges the box.
PR “off-balance-sheet” isolates the general guarantor. Group statements already show equipment deposits ~$68.8M. 8-K: Edge GPU operates, Hydra manages.
17
Chapter 2 · Commercialization
Hydra sells. Duos books the prepay.
Hydra finds
External operator. “Secured a customer for the company.” Share % undisclosed.
Customer wires
~$15M in May + $3M pending. Aggregate ~$18M.
Duos liability
Q2 GPUaaS contract liability $18.77M. ASC 606: cash in, service not yet delivered.
Revenue later
Releases as GPUs power on. 2H’26 management ~$26M. Exhibit not public.
Narrative ~$176M / 36 months. GM >80% and ~$40M annualized EBITDA are PR. End customer still unnamed.
18
Chapter 2 · Financing layer
$98.1M is a commitment, not a closed 8-K
$98.1MUSD.AI three-year facility
$68.8MEquipment deposits at 6/30
$112.3MGroup cash at 6/30
$84.1MLinkedIn: first placed in escrow
Borrower is GPUaaS LLC. Collateral: GPUs owned by the SPV. Parent pledges SPV equity, generally not liable except bad-boy. Interest rate undisclosed. Rate, LTV, and “off-balance-sheet” cannot be read off the USD.AI website as Duos contract terms. LinkedIn escrow figure is secondary.
19
Chapter 2 · Cash sequence
Equity first. Debt after install. Prepay is not capex.
$98.1M intended to stop buying cards only via raises. Not independently closed in-window.
3. Customer prepay
~$18M improves operating-cash optics. It is a liability, not card-purchase funding.
20
Chapter 2 · Statement lag
The facility story is on deposits, not rents
FY24 Hosting$0
FY25 Hosting$56k
Q2’26 Hosting~$33k
H1’26 Hosting~$63k
FY25 group revenue $27.0M is ~83% APR/AMA energy remnant, not Edge or Hydra. Large GPU contracts timestamp after H1 2026. ASC 606 waits for service.
21
Chapter 2 · Unit economics
Disclosure is ~24% tighter than the $4.50 × 80% model
Duos TCV$176M / 36 mo
Model rev$218M · +24%
Per GPU / mo$2,122 vs $2,628
EBITDA printPR $40M vs model $55–58M
Common base: 2,304 B300 GPUs, not 2,304 machines. Model assumes 8 GPU/node = 288 servers. Pinning $176M implies ~$3.63/GPU-h at 80%, or ~65% utilization at $4.50 — or $176M is already net of Hydra share.
22
Chapter 2 · Capital
Deposits plus debt clear bare metal, not all-in
Deposits$68.8M
USD.AI$98.1M
Sum$166.9M
Bare / all-in$187.2M / $244.8M
Prepay ~10% of TCV is coherent on both sides. Tracking switch is deposits converting to PPE and USD.AI closing — not treating $176M as run-rate.
23
SGRX vs DUOT
Named structure is not earned GPU rent
SGRX
Undelivered rights. Unnamed manager. Micro-cap deficit. APA + slogan outsourcing.
vs
DUOT
Own facilities, named Hydra, USD.AI, $18.77M prepay. P&L still near zero.
24
Takeaways
First ask who signed. Then which line the money entered.
1. What was bought
Rights package ≠ installed GPUs. “APA closed” is not “racks on.”
2. Name the manager
Facility, collector, default. Slogans can match; evidence thickness does not.
3. Operator ≠ revenue
Hydra operates; prepay sits on Duos. Do not assume the operator books the rent.
Five no’s → story on a shell. Structure named, revenue unreleased → still under construction.
25
Close
This is not one “APA model.” It is one split technique.
Asset rights, physical facilities, commercialization, and financing can sit in different entities. The ruler is a public name, a public contract, and a public statement line — not whether someone has shouted “outsourcing.”
