There has been a lot of discussion around $ONDS this year about dilution, and understandably so. The share count has increased dramatically, but I think investors are making a fairly common analytical mistake: taking something that is true and assuming it must therefore explain the stock price. Start with the four charts below: $ONDS, $AVAV, $KTOS and $RCAT. These are different companies with different capital structures, balance sheets and operating histories, yet their charts over the last couple of weeks are remarkably similar. Shoutout to @rndo_calrisian for flagging these charts and their striking similarities. All four made local highs around August 13–14, rolled over shortly thereafter, experienced another pronounced selloff around August 20, recovered somewhat, and then broke lower again around August 24. Measured approximately from the local highs shown in these charts, $ONDS has fallen ~24%, $AVAV ~30%, $KTOS ~22% and $RCAT ~25%. In other words, $ONDS is almost exactly in the middle of the group. This doesn't require some elaborate explanation. There has been significant weakness across the drone/defense-tech complex, and $ONDS has participated in it. The interesting part is how differently that weakness tends to be explained depending on which ticker is being discussed. With $ONDS, the ready-made explanation is dilution, and to be clear, there has been plenty of it if your definition of this term starts and ends with "new share issuance." $ONDS had 219.2 million shares outstanding on August 7, 2025. By August 11, 2026, that number had increased to 570.6 million. This represents an increase of roughly 160% in a year. Taken in isolation, it's an ugly number, but it also tells us surprisingly little about whether issuing those shares created or destroyed value. Dilution describes the change in the denominator, but to evaluate the capital allocation, you also have to look at what happened to the numerator. In Q2 2025, $ONDS generated $6.3M of revenue. In Q2 2026, it generated $83.8M. So over roughly the same period in which the share count increased 160%, quarterly revenue increased approximately 1,230%. Using the nearby reported share counts as a simple analytical denominator, quarterly revenue per outstanding share went from roughly $0.029 to $0.147. That's an increase of approximately 411%. Put more simply: the share count increased 2.6x, while revenue increased 13.3x with revenue per outstanding share increasing more than fivefold. There is another reason the revenue-per-share comparison matters more now than it might have a year ago: As we heard on the Q2 earnings call, $ONDS continues to pull forward its adjusted EBITDA profitability timeline as operating leverage begins to show up in the model. Revenue per share is obviously not earnings per share, but the distinction becomes much more interesting as the business approaches profitability. Growing revenue per share by 411% while remaining structurally unprofitable would tell us one thing, but growing revenue per share by 411% while margins improve and the profitability timeline moves forward tells us something else: Increasingly, incremental revenue has the potential to fall through the P&L rather than simply funding a larger cost base. That's ultimately where the dilution debate has to migrate. The question isn't whether $ONDS issued a lot of shares. They obviously did. The question now is whether the assets and operating scale acquired with those shares can eventually produce more earnings and free cash flow per share than the business could have produced before them. We're not at the point where that has been proven, but with revenue growing substantially faster than the share count and management pulling profitability forward, we're getting much closer to having the data necessary to answer it. To be clear, none of this makes dilution disappear, it just tells us that counting shares without asking what those shares financed is not particularly useful analysis. Before you bring it up, yes, much of the increase in reported revenue reflects acquired revenue, but that isn't exactly a surprise. Acquiring and building these businesses is one of the principal reasons $ONDS raised the capital in the first place. You can't simultaneously criticize a company for issuing equity to acquire assets and then exclude the assets when evaluating what shareholders received for that equity. More importantly, the growth isn't entirely an acquisition accounting story. $ONDS reported 85% year-over-year revenue growth on a pro-forma, same-portfolio basis in Q2 2026. The broader operating picture has changed just as dramatically: The company reported $83.8M of Q2 revenue, $613M of backlog at June 30 and $757 million of pro-forma backlog including DZYNE and Cyberhawk. It raised 2026 revenue guidance to $525–550M and has been pulling forward its expected timeline to adjusted EBITDA profitability. None of that guarantees the acquisitions will ultimately earn attractive returns on the capital used to acquire them, and that's the part investors still have to judge. Acquisition prices matter, integration matters, margins matter, cash conversion matters. Ultimately, per-share free cash flow matters. Those are way more interesting questions than whether the share count went up because we already know it did. What is the most interesting thing is the way the narrative around that fact changes with the price action. Had the drone theme been in a raging bull market while $ONDS was executing this strategy, I suspect we'd hear considerably more about management using an elevated equity currency to consolidate assets, expand capabilities, grow backlog, accelerate revenue and pull forward profitability. Instead, the sector is weak, the stocks are down, and the same capital allocation strategy is viewed almost entirely through the number of shares issued. The four charts are useful because they provide some perspective. $ONDS specific dilution cannot explain why $AVAV, $KTOS and $RCAT made local highs at roughly the same time as $ONDS and then suffered 20–30% drawdowns alongside it. There is very clearly a sector component to the price action in 2026. Likewise, “160% more shares” doesn't tell you much about the economics of the $ONDS strategy without the accompanying fact that quarterly revenue increased roughly 1,230% and revenue per outstanding share increased roughly 411%. The sensible interpretation for me lands somewhere between the two extremes. $ONDS has diluted shareholders substantially. It has also used that capital to expand the business at a rate that, so far, has materially exceeded the growth in the share count. Meanwhile, the recent weakness in $ONDS is occurring during an unusually broad correction across its closest publicly traded peers. Whether the strategy ultimately creates value will depend on what these assets produce over the next several years, not on whether the share count increased in 2026. Thanks for reading.