Dear EverCraft Community Investors,
Thank you to everyone who has personally reached out to me over the past weeks to hear my perspective. Since EverCraft has prohibited me from making any public statements for over a year, I am now choosing this way to address you.
From the very beginning, it was my wish to communicate openly about technical challenges and delays. However, I was repeatedly forbidden to do so—with the reasoning that “the community would not be able to handle it.” I was told my role was limited to technology and development, not communication or tokenization.
Therefore, I focused entirely on leading the ACA plant to technical success together with the University of St. Andrews and the plant manufacturer Eisenmann—with the goal of proving that the CNT production technology works on an industrial scale and can be presented to potential plant buyers or customers.
In recent months, EverCraft has repeatedly made false claims that I provided incorrect information about the ACA plant. Personal accusations and even threats were made against me, leading me to continue all communication with EverCraft exclusively through my lawyer.
In reality, the reasons for the standstill lie not in the technology, but in the halted financing and missing operational prerequisites—both of which have always been and remain the responsibility of EverCraft.
The facts:
-
All information I communicated was based on verifiable technical results and written documentation from our partners:
-
University of St. Andrews (Scotland): scientific validation, close process supervision, material analyses, test evaluations, etc.
-
Eisenmann: construction and technical specifications of the plant, commissioning, and written confirmation of performance data.
-
-
EverCraft had continuous access to all relevant reports and development progress.
Mario Wagner personally visited St. Andrews several times since 2015, received full insight into the work, could question the scientists directly, and was informed about both progress and difficulties.
Therefore, the accusation that I provided false information is unfounded — DI Wagner was fully informed about the technology.
The beginning was, as expected for a new technological implementation, challenging and required overcoming many obstacles. But the breakthrough came in July 2024, when CNT material was successfully produced for the first time. From that point, process control, reactor settings, and catalyst conditions were correctly aligned.
Between July and December 2024, five additional tests were carried out, each with increasing yield and stable process performance.
Confirmation by the University of St. Andrews
The University of St. Andrews analyzed all samples from these test series.
The results in December 2024 were scientifically clear and positive:
-
Yield: 14.7% CNTs from 20 kg of catalyst material → equivalent to approx. 2.9 kg CNTs,
-
Exceeding the theoretically predicted values,
-
Achieved despite using the older catalyst type (Generation 1).
However: Funding was halted.
In summer 2024, EverCraft was informed that a more advanced catalyst (Generation 2) was required for industrial efficiency due to:
-
The separation of CNTs from the spent catalyst being very time-consuming,
-
Potential for optimization in efficiency and cycle time for purification.
At that point, EverCraft stopped paying outstanding invoices and refused further investment.
The new catalyst development was then completed by AGT in cooperation with St. Andrews by March 2025, without any financial contribution from EverCraft.
To this day, it remains unclear whether the funds were merely withheld or no longer exist. This lack of transparency and the payment freeze led to the project coming to a standstill in August 2024.
Financial Non-Transparency and Call for Clarification
I naturally questioned the payment halt and the lack of transparency in financial flows but have still not received any answers.
Instead, I was suddenly invited to a general assembly of EverCraft GmbH in Vienna in February 2025, officially citing imminent insolvency.
According to EverCraft, around € 3 million in investor funds had been raised. However, only about € 1.3 million can be traced as actual investments into the ACA plant, the University of St. Andrews, and Eisenmann.
Thus, I asked the obvious question:
“Where are the remaining €1.7 million?”
To this day, no clear answer has been provided. Instead, I was told this was “not within my area of responsibility.”
In two further general assemblies, I demanded insight into the payment flows and connections between EverCraft GmbH in Vienna and the three other EverCraft entities that were founded without my involvement. Even with legal assistance, this information has still not been disclosed.
As a result, the shareholders’ meeting refused to approve the 2024 financial statement, and Mario Wagner was removed as managing director of EverCraft GmbH Vienna.
Increasing Pressure and Unlawful Demands
The more I insisted on transparency, the more claims emerged that the technology allegedly did not work.
At the same time, in July 2025, Holger Kuhlmann suddenly demanded in writing:
-
EverCraft’s participation in all IP rights of AGT,
-
4% participation in the Poland project,
-
A €1.45 million license prepayment from the Polish partners to EverCraft Ltd. and personally to Mario Wagner.
These demands not only contradict the existing contracts—which explicitly state that EverCraft holds no rights to the technology or to the Polish partners—but also disprove their own claim that the technology does not work. After all, it would make no sense to demand such rights if one didn’t believe in the technology’s validity.
Clarification on the Poland Project:
-
Cooperation with the Polish partners has existed since 2012, long before EverCraft.
-
Therefore, any project from these partners or from Poland was explicitly excluded from the contracts with EverCraft.
-
Mario Wagner was fully informed—talks with Polish investors took place with his knowledge and once even in his presence.
It is therefore my conviction that the real reason EverCraft could not continue the project is simply lack of funds.
What is missing:
-
A valid operating permit,
-
Qualified personnel,
-
Operational liability insurance.
All of these were to be financed and organized by EverCraft—none have been implemented.
Technical Status Today
Between November 2024 and February 2025, a new catalyst (Generation 2) was developed with St. Andrews, successfully tested in the lab, and already delivered to the plant.
At the same time, with Eisenmann, Line 2 of the plant was modified to allow independent operation of both reactors (the plant consists of 2 lines with 2 reactors each)—a key step toward economic operation.
Another test run, requiring no additional costs for EverCraft, could confirm the current technical status at any time. The new 20 kg catalyst material needed has been provided free of charge by our Polish partners.
However, since July 2025, I have been prohibited from conducting any tests.
Current Situation and Outlook
After the events of the past twelve months, the relationship between EverCraft (Mario Wagner and Holger Kuhlmann) and myself is severely strained. A constructive collaboration currently seems unrealistic.
Nevertheless, I believe it would be wrong—especially toward you, the investors—to simply let the project die.
Therefore, in September 2025, I proposed the following solution:
-
To find a new external investor willing to acquire the ACA plant in Utzenaich at the same price EverCraft paid to AGT.
-
EverCraft Ltd. would thereby recover its invested capital.
-
AGT and partners would continue working with the new investor and develop a model allowing investors who still believe in the technology to remain involved or receive compensation.
So far, EverCraft has rejected this proposal.
Instead, Mario Wagner and Holger Kuhlmann attempted to demand €2.9 million from Eisenmann and the University of St. Andrews—claiming that the prior research results and confirmations were false. According to my information, this claim was met with complete incomprehension by both institutions.
My Conclusion
EverCraft is currently incapable of action and without direction.
The decision to enable some recovery for investors through a sale lies solely with EverCraft.
I remain willing to support such a process—but I cannot make that decision myself.