Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

iMusti, Inc.

iMusti, Inc. looks under-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

iMusti, Inc. operates in Other, based in FREMONT.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

iMusti, Inc. has raised $6.0M in disclosed capital across 3 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $4.0M on 2012-11-28.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2013-12-23.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models iMusti, Inc. at approximately $26M (range $2.4M–$143M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.30× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2013–2015 (623 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 22 months.

Last raise 12.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.

The last round was 2.3× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 69% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 60% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Biloxi Baseball, LLC, United Sample Inc, Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., County Waste of Virginia, LLC, Marathon Patent Group, Inc..

Peoplefiled

5 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.