The value of Aim-listed Sondrel more than doubled after it was reported that it played a key role in Elon Musk’s Neuralink brain chip.
Berkshire’s share price soared 105.9 per cent, or 6.3 pence, to 12.25 pence after Mail Online revealed that Sondrell had backed the semiconductor technology that enabled Neuralink’s implants to function, giving it a market capitalization of 5 million. The pound has increased by more than 5 million pounds.
Sondrel is one of the few companies that can supply the high-spec chips needed. The other countries are located in Asia and are considered vulnerable to Chinese interference.
Founded in 2016, Neuralink works to develop devices that can be implanted in a person’s brain to record and potentially stimulate activity.
Musk said the implant could allow users with disabilities, like the late Stephen Hawking, to use their thoughts to move their bodies.
But Neuralink has struggled to gain approval for human trials due to safety concerns, and some experts say the technology could be misused for “neurosurveillance.” .
Related article
How can this be money help?
In September, the company received the go-ahead from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and was able to begin human testing of the chip.
According to Mail Online, Neuralink turned to Sondrel for expertise in designing its most complex chips.
Yesterday, Sondrell confirmed the report and the stock price movement, but said it would not comment on the identity of the client.
“The group’s customer base continues to include global technology brands,” the company said.
The company is led by chief executive Graham Cullen, who graduated in electrical engineering from the University of Leeds.
He founded Sondrel in 2002 after realizing that there were no companies in the market that specialized in complex chip designs.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. We may earn a small commission when you click. This helps fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow commercial relationships to affect our editorial independence.
