4D·

Scam Circus

Sell $CA1 (-9.45%) :


🧹 Why Circus SE Is a Fragile Investment Case (Bear Take)


Let’s cut through the hype.


Circus is being marketed as a high-growth, AI-driven food automation company. But if you strip away the narrative and look at the financials, what you’re left with is a capital-dependent, pre-commercial business with a valuation that still assumes everything goes right.


1) There is no real operating track record yet


In 2024, Circus generated zero revenue from its core technology and reported roughly -€12m EBITDA.

This is not a scaling business. This is still an R&D story.


2) The valuation is based on projections, not reality


Management guides to low single-digit millions of revenue in 2025, with deliveries only starting late in the year and recurring SaaS kicking in Q4.


Yet bullish models are projecting:


  • €28m revenue in 2025
  • €146m in 2026
  • €463m in 2027



That’s not forecasting. That’s optimism stacked on top of optimism.


3) This is fundamentally a dilution story


Over 2025 alone, Circus:


  • Raised capital via rights issue (~€21m)
  • Then did another capital increase (~€30m)
  • Issued millions of new shares



Translation: the business is not funding itself.

It is being funded by investors.


If execution slips, expect more dilution. Simple as that.


4) “Clients” ≠ revenue


You’ll hear about REWE, Tamoil, Mangal, etc.


But:


  • Framework agreements ≠ signed revenue
  • Announced partnerships ≠ deployed units
  • Potential contracts ≠ cash in the bank



The company itself confirmed: no core-tech revenue in 2024.


That tells you everything about where they actually are.


5) The valuation models are basically guessing


Bullish research shows valuation ranges from:


  • Near zero
  • To €100+ per share
  • To €200+ depending on assumptions



When your valuation changes by 10x–100x based on inputs, it means one thing:


👉 The business is too immature to value properly.


6) Even after the crash, it’s not “cheap”


Yes, the stock is down massively.


But today you’re still looking at:


  • ~€200m market cap
  • Loss-making business
  • Early-stage commercialization
  • Revenue largely in the future



“Down a lot” ≠ undervalued.


7) The real risk: execution + financing


To justify the current story, Circus needs to:


  • Successfully manufacture and deploy units at scale
  • Convert pilots into real revenue
  • Build recurring SaaS revenue
  • Control costs during expansion



If even one of these breaks:

👉 They raise more capital

👉 You get diluted


🎯 Bottom line


Circus is not a proven growth company.


It is a high-risk commercialization bet funded by equity markets, where:


  • Revenue is mostly future
  • Economics are unproven
  • Dilution is ongoing
  • Valuation assumes success



That doesn’t mean it’s a fraud.


But it absolutely means:

👉 The downside is very real if execution doesn’t match the story.

5
5 Comments

Circus’ entire defence collapses once you separate narrative from numbers: despite big-name partnerships and bold projections, the company generated no core-tech revenue in 2024, remains loss-making, and is only guiding to minimal revenues starting late 2025, yet it’s valued as if large-scale deployment and high-margin SaaS are already proven. The “clients” are mostly early-stage agreements, not recurring cash flows; the growth forecasts are aggressive assumptions stacked on top of unproven execution; and repeated capital raises show the business is still funded by investors, not operations. In short, you’re not buying a functioning growth company, you’re underwriting a best-case future while absorbing real dilution and execution risk today.
‱
3
‱
The real issue isn’t just the business model, it’s leadership credibility. The founder is asking the market to believe in a highly complex hardware + SaaS scale-up, yet there is no demonstrated track record of successfully building, operating, or scaling anything comparable. At this stage, investors are effectively underwriting execution risk based on vision rather than evidence. When a company with no proven revenue base, ongoing losses, and repeated capital raises is led by a team without clear, relevant execution history, the burden of proof should be extremely high. Right now, it isn’t being met.
‱
2
‱
Nico is reported as having the napoleon sindrome đŸ–•đŸ»
‱
2
‱
profile image
Their communication (websites, press releases) reads like bullshit bingo. I said it when I first saw the company, and I say it again: That company will go belly up.
‱
2
‱
profile image
Because it lost more than -40% of its market cap within a year
‱
1
‱
Join the conversation