Not a pilot deck. A measured deployment.
This is the page that converts skeptics, so the proof is front-loaded and every figure is scoped to exactly what it is. The technology has run in live venue environments, not just a lab: a Gaming and Sports Entertainment Group deployment with measured first-year results, and two MLB seasons. The single most important number on the page is payback inside 90 days. The single most important discipline is naming what is proven and what is still projected.
Hours to roughly 10 minutes.
Gaming first-year actual.
Hardware plus Year-1 subscription.
Recover ~$33K, pay ~$4.8K per venue.
Gaming and Sports Entertainment Group, first-year results
The numbers below are operating results from a single Gaming and Sports Entertainment Group deployment over its first year. They are single-deployment actuals, scoped as such, not yet validated across the independent-bar segment the raise is built to reach. Stating that plainly is the point: self-awareness reads as strength, concealment reads as naivete, and a sophisticated investor will ask the scope question if the page does not answer it first.
| Metric | First-year result | What it means | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to inventory | down 90% | Hours of weekly counting to roughly ten minutes. | Single-deployment actual [pending source verification] |
| Shrinkage | down 35% | Margin recovered from over-pours, spillage, and unrecorded loss. | Gaming first-year actual [pending source verification] |
| Excess backstock | down 55% | Capital freed from inventory sitting dead on the shelf. | Single-deployment actual [pending source verification] |
| Full payback | under 90 days | Hardware plus the first-year subscription recouped inside one quarter. | Consistent with the per-venue ROI build below |
One figure to hold the line on: the shrinkage reduction is 35 percent. Earlier materials quoted loss reduction at 35, 50, and 10-percent-plus in different places. The honest number is the Gaming first-year 35 percent, carried here and routed to the claims register. The other two are dropped so the inconsistency never reaches an investor.
The MLB deployment, 2022 and 2023 seasons
The system also ran across the 2022 and 2023 Major League Baseball seasons. That matters for one specific reason: it is evidence the technology holds outside a single venue type, in a high-volume, high-throughput environment that stresses a sensing system differently than a Gaming venue back bar does. A system that works in both settings is harder to dismiss as a one-venue artifact.
Deployed and tested across the 2022 and 2023 MLB seasons.
Ballpark concession volume stresses the read rate and the cloud differently than a bar.
Evidence the system is not tuned to one venue type.
The scope of the MLB deployment, the number of parks, the duration within each season, and any published operating metrics, is marked [pending source verification] and routes to the claims register. The verifiable claim is that the system ran across the 2022 and 2023 seasons. Anything beyond that count is scoped as unverified until Klynkz sources it, rather than asserted here.
What one venue recovers, against what it pays
The strongest single argument in the material is the per-venue return. On a venue doing roughly $200K in annual liquor revenue, Klynkz recovers around $33,000 a year across three buckets, against an annual cost a fraction of that size. The result is roughly a 7x return to the customer with payback inside one quarter. The $200K reference venue and the labor figure are illustrative targets; the shrinkage and backstock percentages are the Gaming sample.
| Recovery bucket | Annual value | Source basis |
|---|---|---|
| Shrinkage recovery | $14,000 | From the 35% shrinkage reduction at the Group. |
| Backstock optimization | $12,000 | From the 55% excess-backstock reduction. |
| Labor savings | $7,000 | Illustrative, from 4 to 6 hours per week of counting removed. |
| Total recovered | $33,000+ | Per venue, per year. |
flowchart LR
R["Recovered per venue
$33,000 / year"] --> N["Net annual value
~$28,000"]
C["Klynkz cost per venue
~$4,788/yr + ~$1,000 mat"] --> N
N --> ROI["~7x customer ROI
payback under 90 days"]Across three buckets.
$399/mo, plus a one-time mat.
To the venue, after cost.
Cost recovered inside one quarter.
A 7x return on a sub-90-day payback is what makes the subscription sticky. Managers do not cancel a tool that pays for itself many times over and embeds into the daily inventory workflow. The recovery figures reconcile to the validated five-year model, which reaches breakeven in Year 3 and carries the same ~7x customer ROI, not to the earlier deck figures.
Integrated across eight POS systems
Reconciliation against the point of sale is where unrecorded loss hides, so POS breadth is itself a form of traction. Klynkz integrates with eight POS systems, the same systems the natural strategic acquirers already own. That embedding raises switching costs at the venue and makes the acquirer case concrete, because a buyer is acquiring something already wired into their own stack.
Switching costs here are emerging rather than established at the current install base: the hardware install, the POS integration, and the workflow change create real stickiness, but the base is still small enough that the moat is forming, not finished. The honest framing is that the embedding is a genuine advantage that strengthens with every venue added.
What is proven, and what is projected
The single-case-study risk is handled here directly rather than left for the investor to raise. The split is clean. The technology and the per-venue economics are proven in real venues. The scale, the path to thousands of independent operators, and the five-year financials are projected and labeled as such. Naming the line is what lets the proven side carry full weight.
- The mat reads each bottle in live venue environments, not a lab.
- Gaming first-year results: time to inventory, shrinkage, and backstock all moved.
- The system ran across two MLB seasons, in a second venue type.
- Per-venue ROI grounded partly in realized Gaming operating metrics.
- Integration across eight POS systems.
- A repeatable go-to-market motion to thousands of independent venues.
- Validation of the results across the independent-bar segment.
- The five-year revenue, margin, and breakeven build (breakeven in Year 3).
- The recurring-mix trajectory as the install base compounds.
- The data moat maturing from emerging to established at scale.
Every operating figure on this page that is not yet sourced to a named, dated record is marked [pending source verification] and routes to the claims register before it ships in a data room. Every financial figure reconciles to the validated five-year model, not the pitch deck. The deck's IRR and free-cash-flow multiple are not reproducible from the validated model and do not appear here.