GSI Technology (GSIT): An In-Depth Analysis of the Cornell Catalyst and a Tripled Valuation

Executive Summary

The Catalyst

This report dissects the anatomy of an extraordinary stock surge. On October 20, 2025, a single press release announced a favorable academic paper from Cornell University researchers.¹,² This news sent GSI Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: GSIT) stock soaring over 200% in one day. The event transformed a sub-$100 million company into one valued at over $300 million overnight.³,⁴,⁵

Core Thesis

The market’s reaction represents a significant overvaluation. It is based on a promotional interpretation of a highly nuanced academic study. GSI’s Compute-in-Memory (CIM) technology holds legitimate long-term potential. However, the company’s current financial health, product maturity, and lack of commercial traction do not justify its post-rally valuation.

Key Findings

• Misleading Research Claims: The Cornell paper’s findings are conditional and do not represent a commercial product. GSI’s press release omits that the results required bespoke software optimizations. The testbed also used a simulated memory component, not a fully physical, real-world system.⁶,⁷,⁸
• Outdated Benchmark: The report compares the Gemini-I APU to an NVIDIA A6000 GPU. This comparison is misleading because the A6000 is two generations behind the state-of-the-art. Matching its performance means the Gemini-I is significantly underpowered compared to current hardware.⁹,¹⁰,¹¹
• Chronic Unprofitability and Dilution: GSI Technology has a multi-decade history of unprofitability.¹²,¹³ The company relies on shareholder dilution to fund its operations through an active At-the-Market (ATM) stock offering. This is not a future risk but an ongoing business practice.¹⁴,¹⁵
• Indicative Insider Selling: Key executives, including the head of the APU division, sold shares at prices below $4.00 just two months before the rally.¹⁶,¹⁷ This action signals a lack of internal conviction in a near-term valuation surge of this magnitude.
• “Short Squeeze” Narrative Unsubstantiated: Market data does not support a short squeeze as the primary cause of the rally. Short interest had been declining for eight months prior to the event. This indicates that short covering was an accelerant, not the root cause.¹⁸

Conclusion

The initial skepticism is well-founded. The situation aligns with a “promote and dilute” strategy, where the company uses positive news to create a favorable market for raising capital. A high probability of a significant price correction exists as market exuberance confronts the company’s fundamental financial realities. The long-term trajectory, even if the technology proves viable, is fraught with financial risk and the near-certainty of further shareholder dilution.

Deconstructing the Catalyst: The Cornell Paper and Compute-in-Memory (CIM) Technology

This section scrutinizes the academic paper that triggered the stock rally. We find that GSI Technology’s press release presented a simplified and overly optimistic version of the research. The paper’s authors achieved their results using specialized software and a simulated hardware component. They also benchmarked the Gemini-I chip against an outdated NVIDIA GPU. The company’s announcement omitted these crucial details, which fundamentally changes the findings’ commercial implications.

The dramatic re-rating of GSI Technology’s stock hinges almost entirely on the market’s interpretation of a single academic paper. This section provides a rigorous technical analysis of the claims driving the rally. It separates the long-term academic potential of the technology from the near-term commercial reality of the product.

The Promise and Peril of Compute-in-Memory (CIM)

To understand the excitement, one must first grasp the fundamental problem GSI’s technology aims to solve: the “memory wall.”

The “Memory Wall” Bottleneck

Traditional computer systems use the von Neumann architecture. This design physically separates processing units (CPUs, GPUs) from memory units (DRAM, SRAM). This separation forces the constant movement of data between storage and processing.

In the era of big data and AI, this data movement has become the primary bottleneck for performance and energy efficiency. Studies show that powerful processors can spend over 60% of their time idle, simply waiting for data.¹⁹ The energy used to move data can also be orders of magnitude greater than the energy for the actual computation.¹⁹

CIM as a Paradigm Shift

Compute-in-Memory (CIM) represents a radical departure from this architecture. Often considered a “holy grail” of computing, CIM performs computations directly within the memory arrays where data is stored, minimizing data movement.²⁰,²¹,¹⁹

This approach is ideal for AI workloads dominated by multiply-and-accumulate (MAC) operations. CIM architectures perform these operations in a highly parallel fashion within the memory itself. This offers dramatic potential gains in speed and power efficiency.¹⁹

The State of CIM in 2025

Despite its promise, CIM is a nascent field facing hurdles to commercial adoption. The most significant obstacle is the lack of a mature software ecosystem, which makes programming for these novel architectures difficult.²² Other challenges include ensuring the reliability of emerging non-volatile memory (NVM)—memory that retains data without power—and developing new performance models.¹⁹,²² The market is consequently fragmented, with numerous startups and established players exploring different approaches, but no clear winner has emerged.²²,²³,²⁴,²⁵

A Critical Review of the Cornell Study

GSI Technology’s press release presents the Cornell paper as a landmark independent validation. However, a direct comparison between the company’s public statements and the paper’s details reveals a significant gap between marketing and reality.

The authors presented their paper, “Characterizing and Optimizing Realistic Workloads on a Commercial Compute-in-SRAM Device,” at the prestigious MICRO ’25 conference.¹,⁶ The research team consists mainly of academics from Cornell University. One co-author, Dan Ilan, is an employee of GSI Technology.⁶ The lead author, Niansong Zhang, is a PhD student at Cornell specializing in hardware design and accelerators.²⁶

Claim 1: “GPU-Class Performance”

The central claim that ignited the market states that the Gemini-I APU “delivered comparable throughput to NVIDIA’s A6000 GPU on RAG workloads”.¹ The press release frames this as an inherent capability, but the academic paper tells a more complex story.

The researchers state that to achieve their results, they proposed and implemented “three key optimizations: communication-aware reduction mapping, coalesced DMA, and broadcast-friendly data layouts”.⁶,⁷ These were novel contributions of the research itself. These specific optimizations enabled the system to accelerate retrieval by 5.4x–7.5x, ultimately allowing it to match the A6000 GPU’s performance.⁶ The performance is therefore conditional upon this specialized, researcher-developed software, not an out-of-the-box capability of the hardware alone.

Claim 2: A Real-World Test?

The press release implies a direct, hardware-to-hardware comparison. However, the paper’s abstract contains a critical qualification. The authors explicitly state:

“The shared off-chip memory bandwidth is modeled using a simulated HBM, while all other components are measured on the real compute-in-SRAM device”.⁶,⁷,⁸

High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) is a vital link between a processor and external data. By simulating this component, the researchers could model an idealized data pipeline, removing a potential real-world bottleneck. This means the test did not fully replicate a complete, deployable hardware system. The headline results are a hybrid of physical measurement and theoretical simulation—a material omission in a press release aimed at investors.

The NVIDIA A6000 Benchmark: A Question of Relevance

The choice of benchmark hardware raises further questions about the commercial relevance of these results. The user’s initial suspicion that the comparison to an “old chip” was a red flag is correct and points to a crucial weakness in the bull case.

The NVIDIA RTX A6000, used for comparison in the Cornell study, is based on the “Ampere” architecture, introduced in 2020.⁹ By late 2025, the AI hardware landscape is dominated by newer, far more powerful architectures like “Ada Lovelace” and “Blackwell”.²⁷,²⁸,²⁹

The performance gap is substantial. The RTX 6000 Ada delivers up to 2-3 times faster AI training speeds than the Ampere-based A6000.⁹ In rendering benchmarks, the consumer-grade RTX 4090 (Ada Lovelace) is approximately twice as fast as the A6000.¹⁰

Metric	NVIDIA RTX A6000	NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada	NVIDIA H100 (SXM5)
Architecture	Ampere	Ada Lovelace	Hopper
Release Year	2020	2022	2022
FP32 Performance	38.7 TFLOPS	91.1 TFLOPS	67 TFLOPS
FP16 Performance	~77.4 TFLOPS	~165 TFLOPS	1,979 TFLOPS (w/ Sparsity)
Memory Bandwidth	768 GB/s	960 GB/s	3,350 GB/s
VRAM	48 GB GDDR6	48 GB GDDR6	80 GB HBM3
Generational Status	N-2	N-1	N-1 / Data Center
Sources: ⁹,¹¹,²⁷,³⁰

Claiming to “match” the A6000 in late 2025 is an admission of being significantly slower than current-generation hardware. While the Gemini-I’s energy advantage is its key selling point, the performance benchmark was carefully selected to frame the results in the most favorable, yet least commercially relevant, light.¹

The Product Roadmap: From Gemini to Plato

The press release pivots from the qualified results of Gemini-I to the promise of future products. It highlights that the “second-generation APU silicon, Gemini-II, can deliver roughly 10x faster throughput” and that “Plato, represents the next step forward”.¹,³

This narrative requires careful scrutiny. As of July 2025, Gemini-II had just reached the “fully functional” stage, with a single board delivered to a defense contractor for proof-of-concept development.¹⁵ It is not a commercially scaled product.³¹

More importantly, Plato is still on the drawing board. The company is actively “pursuing financing strategies… to support the continued development of Gemini-II and the launch of Plato”.¹⁴ This is a classic strategy: use results from an old product to generate excitement, then point to the specifications of a future product to sustain the narrative. The risk is that the market is pricing the stock as if these future improvements are already realized.

Corporate Fundamentals: A 30-Year History of Burning Cash

This section examines GSI Technology’s financial health. We find a company with a three-decade history of unprofitability. Its legacy SRAM business generates nearly all revenue but is in decline. This revenue is used to fund the pre-revenue APU venture. The company has a high cash burn rate and a limited runway, making shareholder dilution through its active ATM stock offering a core and ongoing part of its survival strategy.

The technological promises of GSI’s APU must be weighed against the harsh realities of its financial history and current condition.

Historical Financial Performance: A Pattern of Unprofitability

Founded in 1995 and public since 2007, GSI Technology has failed to establish a track record of sustained profitability.¹,⁵ Historical financial data reveals a consistent pattern of net losses and declining revenue from its core business.³²,³³

The company’s business is bifurcated.

• Legacy Segment: The design and sale of high-performance SRAM products, which account for approximately 99% of total revenues.¹²,³⁴,³⁵
• APU Segment: The APU business, despite a reported investment of $150 million, remains a pre-revenue venture.³⁶

The revenue from the declining SRAM business finances the APU’s development.³⁵ This makes GSI effectively a pre-revenue AI startup housed within an unprofitable, legacy semiconductor company.

Current Financial Health and Cash Burn

The company’s most recent financial report for the quarter ending June 30, 2025, provides a clear snapshot of its precarious state.³⁷

• Net Revenues: $6.3 million (driven by SRAM, not APU sales).¹⁵
• Net Loss: $(2.2) million.¹⁵
• Net Cash Used in Operating Activities: $(4.2) million for the quarter.³⁷
• Cash and Cash Equivalents: $22.7 million.¹⁵

At a cash burn rate of $4.2 million per quarter, the company’s cash balance provides a runway of approximately 16 months. This highlights the urgent need for additional funding.

Financing and the Inevitability of Dilution

The question is not if GSI Technology will dilute shareholders, but when and how much. The company has an active At-the-Market (ATM) offering agreement allowing it to sell up to $25.0 million of its stock directly into the market.¹⁴ During the quarter ending June 30, 2025, the company used this facility to raise a net $11 million.¹⁵,³⁸

The company’s board is also actively evaluating a “broad range of strategic alternatives,” including equity or debt financing, or a sale of the company.¹⁴,³⁵ For GSI, shareholder dilution is a core component of its financial survival.

Fiscal Year	Net Revenues (in millions)	Gross Margin (%)	Operating Loss (in millions)	Net Loss (in millions)
2025	$20.5	49.4%	$(10.8)	$(10.6)
2024	$21.8	54.3%	$(20.4)	$(20.1)
2023	$29.0	54.3%	$(20.1)	$(20.1)
2022	$32.7	59.8%	$(14.9)	$(14.9)
2021	$26.8	55.4%	$(20.9)	$(20.8)
Source: GSI Technology, Inc. SEC Filings ¹³,³²,³⁹

Market Forensics: Pump, Squeeze, or Irrational Exuberance?

This section analyzes market activity surrounding the rally. Insider trading records show key executives sold stock at prices far below the peak just weeks before the news, suggesting they did not anticipate the massive rally. Short interest data reveals that a “short squeeze” was not the primary driver of the event. Finally, the lack of coordinated promotion on social media platforms like Reddit indicates this was a news-driven event amplified by reactive retail interest, not a “meme stock” campaign.

To fully assess the nature of the stock’s rally, it is necessary to examine the market mechanics and the actions of key stakeholders.

Insider Trading Analysis: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The trading activity of a company’s executives can be a powerful indicator of their confidence. In GSI’s case, the evidence from recent insider filings is telling. Form 4 filings from August 2025, just two months before the stock’s ascent, reveal notable sales by key insiders at a fraction of the current price.¹⁶

• Avidan Akerib (Vice President, Associative Computing Business Unit): The executive directly responsible for the APU technology, Dr. Akerib, sold 10,000 shares on August 5, 2025, at a weighted average price of $3.8947.¹⁷
• Jack A. Bradley (Director): Mr. Bradley sold a total of 8,000 shares on August 6 and 7, 2025, at prices of $3.50 and $3.30.¹⁶

The head of the APU division chose to liquidate holdings at under $4.00 per share just weeks before the study’s release. These actions suggest that insiders did not anticipate the extreme magnitude of the market’s reaction. This behavior is inconsistent with having foreknowledge of a truly transformative event.

Filing Date	Insider Name	Title	Transaction	Shares	Price ($)	Total Value ($)
Aug 7, 2025	Avidan Akerib	VP, Associative Computing	Sell	10,000	3.8947	38,947
Aug 7, 2025	Jack A. Bradley	Director	Sell	6,900	3.30	22,770
Aug 6, 2025	Jack A. Bradley	Director	Sell	1,100	3.50	3,850
Source: SEC Form 4 Filings ¹⁶,¹⁷

Short Interest Dynamics: De-bunking the Squeeze

The narrative of a “short squeeze” is not supported by the data. According to NASDAQ, short interest in GSIT peaked in early 2025. It was in a steady decline for over eight months leading up to the press release.¹⁸

By September 30, 2025, total short interest had fallen to just 272,635 shares. The “days to cover” ratio stood at a modest 1.6.¹⁸ While the initial buying pressure certainly forced remaining short-sellers to cover, the pool of shorted shares was too small to be the primary engine of a 200%+ rally.

Settlement Date	Short Interest (Shares)	Avg. Daily Volume	Days to Cover
Jan 31, 2025	1,135,016	8,684,718	1.00
Mar 31, 2025	715,042	109,281	6.54
Sep 30, 2025	272,635	168,518	1.62
Source: NASDAQ Short Interest Data ¹⁸

Institutional Ownership and Social Media Footprint

The rally does not appear to have been driven by a coordinated retail investor campaign, such as those seen during the “meme stock” phenomenon of 2021.⁴⁰,⁴¹ A search of Reddit’s r/wallstreetbets forum reveals no significant, proactive campaign to promote GSIT prior to the news.⁴²,⁴³,⁴⁴

Institutional ownership remains low at approximately 15%.⁴⁵ While filings for the second quarter of 2025 showed new interest from firms like Marshall Wace and Goldman Sachs, the overall institutional footprint is small.⁴⁶,⁴⁷

Conclusion and Outlook

The Bull Case: A Long-Term Bet on Technological Disruption

While this analysis is highly critical of the current valuation, it is important to acknowledge the potential long-term opportunity. The bull case for GSI Technology rests on the genuine promise of Compute-in-Memory (CIM) technology. If CIM can overcome its software and manufacturing hurdles, it could truly revolutionize energy-efficient computing for AI.

In this optimistic scenario, GSI’s head start in developing its APU could give it a first-mover advantage. The 10x performance improvement promised by Gemini-II, if realized and funded, could make it a competitive niche product for power-constrained edge applications.¹ If GSI can successfully execute its product roadmap through Plato and beyond, and if it can secure the necessary funding without excessive dilution, it could eventually capture a small but valuable piece of the massive AI inference market.¹ However, this bull case requires overlooking the company’s entire financial history, its current cash burn, and the significant execution risks ahead. It is a bet on a technological lottery ticket, not on a fundamentally sound business.

Final Verdict and Recommendations

This analysis validates the core of the user’s skeptical thesis. The evidence strongly suggests that the recent surge in GSI Technology’s stock price is unsustainable.

• Is it a “Pump and Dump”? The situation is more accurately characterized as a “promote and dilute” strategy. The “pump” is the company’s misleadingly optimistic press release. The “dump” is a transparent corporate necessity: using the inflated stock price to sell shares via its ATM facility to fund its cash-burning operations.
• Is the Press Release Bogus? Yes, in the sense that it omits material context. By failing to disclose the use of specialized software, a simulated memory component, and an outdated GPU benchmark, the press release paints a picture of a commercial breakthrough where the academic paper describes an early-stage research result.
• Are Shareholders in for a Huge Dip? A significant price correction appears highly probable. The current valuation is disconnected from GSI’s revenue, profitability, and cash flow reality.

Recommendations

• For Current Investors: Those who held the stock prior to the rally should consider taking profits. The current valuation provides an exit opportunity that is not supported by the company’s fundamentals. Holding the stock now is a high-risk speculation.
• For Potential Investors: Extreme caution is advised. This stock is suitable only for speculative investors with a very high tolerance for risk. Potential buyers should wait for a significant price correction and a clear demonstration of commercial traction for the Gemini-II product before considering a position.
• For GSI Technology: The company should prioritize securing a strategic partner or long-term funding to reduce its reliance on the ATM facility. Transparency in future communications is critical to building long-term investor trust.

Works Cited

1. GSI Technology, Inc. “Compute-In-Memory APU Achieves GPU-Class AI Performance at a Fraction of the Energy Cost.” GlobeNewswire. October 20, 2025.
2. GSI Technology, Inc. “News Releases.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/news-releases/.
3. The Economic Times. “GSIT stock skyrockets 200% today as Cornell study confirms company’s APU matches GPU performance.” October 20, 2025. https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/gsit-stock-skyrockets-200-today-as-cornell-study-confirms-companys-apu-matches-gpu-performance/articleshow/124707644.cms.
4. Nasdaq. “GSI Technology Common Stock (GSIT).” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/gsit.
5. Robinhood. “GSI Technology: GSIT Stock Price Quote & News.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://robinhood.com/us/en/stocks/GSIT/.
6. Zhang, N., Zhu, W., Golden, C., Ilan, D., Chen, H., Batten, C., & Zhang, Z. “Characterizing and Optimizing Realistic Workloads on a Commercial Compute-in-SRAM Device.” 58th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO ’25). October 2025. https://www.csl.cornell.edu/~zhiruz/pdfs/apu-micro2025.pdf.
7. Zhang, N., et al. “Characterizing and Optimizing Realistic Workloads on a Commercial Compute-in-SRAM Device.” arXiv:2509.05451. September 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05451.
8. Chen, H. “Publications.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://chhzh123.github.io/.
9. Subramanian, V. “Should I run AI training on RTX 6000 Ada or NVIDIA A6000?” JarvisLabs.ai. Accessed October 21, 2025. https://jarvislabs.ai/ai-faqs/should-i-choose-rtx6000ada-or-a6000-gpu.
10. iRendering.net. “Compare RTX 4090 vs RTX 6000 Ada vs RTX A6000 for Content Creation.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://irendering.net/compare-rtx-4090-vs-rtx-6000-ada-vs-rtx-a6000-for-content-creation/.
11. BIZON. “NVIDIA RTX A6000 vs NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://bizon-tech.com/gpu-benchmarks/NVIDIA-RTX-A6000-vs-NVIDIA-RTX-6000-Ada/585vs640.
12. GSI Technology, Inc. “Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024.” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1126741/000155837024014139/gsit-20240930x10q.htm.
13. GSI Technology, Inc. “SEC Filings.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/financial-information/sec-filings?field_nir_sec_form_group_target_id%5B%5D=471&field_nir_sec_date_filed_value=&items_per_page=25.
14. GSI Technology, Inc. “2025 Annual Report and Proxy Statement.” July 17, 2025. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/static-files/0377347d-2532-488e-807c-43cd11ab7b12.
15. GSI Technology, Inc. “GSI Technology, Inc. Announces First Quarter Fiscal 2026 Results.” GlobeNewswire. July 31, 2025. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gsi-technology-inc-announces-first-quarter-fiscal-2026-results/.
16. Nasdaq. “GSI Technology Common Stock (GSIT) Insider Activity.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/gsit/insider-activity.
17. GSI Technology, Inc. “Form 4 – Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities (Avidan Akerib).” August 7, 2025. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/static-files/152b762f-a5c1-4e9b-9484-d85533ee1a78.
18. Nasdaq. “GSI Technology Common Stock (GSIT) Short Interest.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/gsit/short-interest.
19. Wawrzynek, J., et al. “The Memory Wall and the Data Movement Problem.” arXiv:2403.14123. March 2024. https://arxiv.org/html/2403.14123v1.
20. TechPowerUp. “Compute-In-Memory APU Achieves GPU-Class AI Performance at a Fraction of the Energy Cost.” October 20, 2025. https://www.techpowerup.com/342054/compute-in-memory-apu-achieves-gpu-class-ai-performance-at-a-fraction-of-the-energy-cost.
21. Khan, S., et al. “A comprehensive review of in-memory computing for machine learning.” International Journal of Web Information Systems. 2024. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJWIS-08-2023-0131/full/html.
22. Belay, A., et al. “In- and Near-Memory Computing: A Survey and Research Roadmap.” arXiv:2401.14428. January 2024. https://arxiv.org/html/2401.14428v1.
23. StartUs Insights. “5 Top Memory Technology Startups.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.startus-insights.com/innovators-guide/memory-technology-startups/.
24. SemiEngineering. “Startup Funding: Q3 2025.” October 2025. https://semiengineering.com/startup-funding-q3-2025/.
25. Tech Funding News. “Swiss AI chip startup Synthara raises $11M to make in-memory computing accessible.” October 14, 2025. https://techfundingnews.com/swiss-ai-chip-startup-synthara-raises-11m-to-make-in-memory-computing-accessible/.
26. Zhang, N. “Niansong Zhang’s Homepage.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.zzzdavid.tech/.
27. NVIDIA. “NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/products/workstations/rtx-6000/.
28. NVIDIA. “Edge AI.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/edge-computing/.
29. H3 Platform. “GPU Specification Comparison: RTX 5090 vs RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell vs RTX 4090 vs RTX A6000 Ada.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.h3platform.com/blog-detail/22.
30. ProX PC. “Best GPUs for AI/ML & Deep Learning in 2024.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.proxpc.com/blogs/best-gpu-aiml-deep-learning-2024-rtx-4090-vs-6000-ada-vs-a5000-vs-a100-benchmarks.
31. GSI Technology, Inc. “GSI Technology Announces Production Release of Two Gemini-I® APU Server Offerings.” GlobeNewswire. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gsi-technology-announces-production-release-two-gemini-ir-apu/.
32. Trefis. “GSI Technology (GSIT) Financials.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.trefis.com/data/companies/GSIT.
33. Stock Analysis. “GSI Technology, Inc. (GSIT) Stock Forecast, Price & News.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/gsit/.
34. Stockrow. “GSI Technology Inc. Business Profile.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://stockrow.com/GSIT/business-profile.
35. GSI Technology, Inc. “Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025.” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1126741/000155837025008723/gsit-20250331x10k.htm.
36. GSI Technology, Inc. “Investor Presentation.” October 2024. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/static-files/3181d682-5c50-40b8-b6f8-7dfe26b33709.
37. GSI Technology, Inc. “Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025.” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1126741/000155837025010923/gsit-20250630x10q.htm.
38. Market Report Analytics. “GSI Technology Inc. (GSIT) Stock Analysis.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/companies/GSIT.
39. GSI Technology, Inc. “GSI Technology, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2025 Results.” GlobeNewswire. May 1, 2025. https://ir.gsitechnology.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gsi-technology-inc-reports-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2025/.
40. CBS News. “What are “meme stocks”? A look at the phenomenon that’s shaking up Wall Street.” February 1, 2021. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meme-stocks-reddit-wallstreetbets-amc-nokia-stock/.
41. Wikipedia. “r/wallstreetbets.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/wallstreetbets.
42. Kaggle. “Reddit WallStreetBets Posts.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/gpreda/reddit-wallstreetsbets-posts.
43. Quiver Quantitative. “WallStreetBets Dashboard.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.quiverquant.com/wallstreetbets/.
44. Yahoo Finance Japan. “GSI Technology Forum.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://finance.yahoo.co.jp/quote/GSIT/forum.
45. Fintel. “GSIT – GSI Technology, Inc. Stock – Institutional Ownership and Shareholders.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://fintel.io/so/us/gsit.
46. Quiver Quantitative. “GSI Technology Stock (GSIT) Opinions on Cornell Study Breakthrough.” October 20, 2025. https://www.quiverquant.com/news/GSI+Technology+Stock+%28GSIT%29+Opinions+on+Cornell+Study+Breakthrough.
47. Nasdaq. “GSI Technology Common Stock (GSIT) Institutional Holdings.” Accessed October 21, 2025. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/gsit/institutional-holdings.