Reading the article, the investigation isn’t a case of independent labs getting hold of the battery and definitively disproving Donut’s claims. It’s battery experts and researchers looking at the data Donut has released and saying, “these claims are extraordinary and the evidence doesn’t yet convince us. Here’s what we think the battery actually is.” That’s a very reasonable scientific position, especially when you’re talking about 400 Wh/kg, 5-minute charging, and 100,000 cycles all at once.
But without independently tested samples, there are still a lot of unknowns and inferences involved. That’s not to say the skeptics are wrong, but it’s still arguably a case of skeptics being skeptical… reasonably so, but based on analysis of the available evidence rather than direct examination of the battery itself.
Yep, that’s a massive argument against Donut. But the question I haven’t seen the battery experts address is whether the expansion pattern is unique to the chemistry they believe it is. Are there other chemistries that could produce the same effect? The investigators clearly don’t think so, but Donut also isn’t claiming to be using previously seen tech.
Either way, it’s not looking good for Donut. The burden of proof is, and always has been, on them, and they have a looooong climb out of the hole they’ve dug.
Regardless, Ziroth and others make a good point that Donut’s marketing games are damaging to the industry. Other legitimate players seeking investment will be tarnished by Donut’s antics. So even if their tech turned out to be legit, they’re still going to be a bad actor.