In this episode of the Sunny Ray Show, host Sunny Ray sits down with Shahab, former CEO of Humanoid Global Holdings, a publicly listed company investing in robotics and physical AI. Shahab explains why the firm chose to go public, arguing that a public vehicle democratizes access for everyday investors, simplifies fundraising through warrants and options, and gives the company flexibility to use stock for deals rather than relying only on cash. Drawing on his background as a senior product manager, early stage VC investor, and startup founder, Shahab breaks down what separates commercialized robotics companies from merely impressive demos, pointing to customer acquisition cost, sales cycles, and defensibility. He argues labor shortages and hazardous work are the real near term drivers behind humanoid adoption, with warehousing and industrial settings leading the way well before consumer homes. The conversation also covers the Asia heavy hardware supply chain, why public markets demand more frequent updates than private capital, and advice for engineers and founders eyeing the space. Shahab closes by pushing back on fears that robotics will rapidly displace human labor.
A former Humanoid Global Holdings CEO unpacks why robotics investing went public, what separates real traction from hype, and where humanoids land first.
What convinced you that humanoid robotics was investable before most of the market had priced it in that way?
I saw the cost curve of hardware innovation and the supply chain around robotics really starting to capitalize physical AI and humanoid robotics. Combined with the labor shortages emerging across many sectors, that declining cost curve created an opportune moment for the sector to start accelerating in a way it hadn't before.
Why go the public route instead of building this privately with far less scrutiny?
Going public democratizes access for investors who aren't high net worth individuals or family offices. It also makes financing easier, since you can keep raising capital through warrants and options and reach institutional investors. It gives the holding company more flexibility to use stock, not just cash, for investments and acquisitions, unlike a closed end venture fund.
What did you do before this that turned out to matter most in the role?
I spent many years as a senior product manager and also worked at a multi family office doing early stage VC investments. I've had opportunities in investment banking as well, and I've been a founder myself involved in several startups. That mix of product, investing, and founder experience really prepared me for this role.
What did you believe about robotics three years ago that you no longer believe today?
We're seeing opportunities emerge across sectors where labor is scarce or human life is exposed to hazardous or physically degrading work. Hardware costs and supply chains have improved a lot, and artificial intelligence has reached a stage where autonomy actually makes sense inside a physical structure. Together that has pushed robotics to a point where adoption and regulation will keep accelerating.
How do you tell whether a robotics company is actually commercialized rather than just impressive?
It comes down to the customer base. Even if a company has revenue, you need to look deeper at customer acquisition cost, what the sales cycle looks like, the forecast, and the real total addressable market they can capture. You also want to know what makes them different from competitors and whether they have any real defensibility or moat.
Humanoids often get sold as a labor story. Is that the real driver, or is something else going on?
That's the beachhead right now. Eventually robots will come into the home in different forms, and you could argue vacuum robots already count. But the hardware costs and business model don't yet justify a true consumer humanoid, which is why early adoption is happening in warehousing, healthcare, and other large industrial settings instead.
What separates a robotics company that still exists in five years from one that won't?
It comes down to really understanding the customer and the specific use case a company can dominate. There are a lot of humanoid players emerging right now, each going after a different vertical. At the end of the day it's a bit like Uber versus Lyft, who can build a sustainable product, get customers, and make it sticky.
What's one misconception about robotics you'd love to correct?
It's not going to displace the labor market as fast as everybody thinks. There's a lot of time needed to build these systems, get adoption, work through regulation, and bring down production costs. Just like people feared losing their jobs to AI, robotics is more of a supplement than a replacement, at least for now.
Building something daring? Sunny talks to founders like this every day. Fifteen minutes to see if your story belongs on the stage.
Claim your pre-interview