JSC MCST has established a new structure that will develop software and hardware systems based on Elbrus processors

As Kommersant discovered, the developer of Elbrus processors, JSC MCST, has established a new structure that will develop software and hardware systems (SHC) based on them. Potential consumers may be subjects of critical information infrastructure (CII) – banks, telecommunications companies and others. However, market participants are skeptical about the project: the partners of the design center will be certain Research Center for Digital Technologies and the Institute of Public-Private Planning, about which the industry knows almost nothing. Kommersant’s sources suggest that, at least at the first stage, we may not be talking about a real production project, but about consolidating lobbying efforts for import substitution in KII.

According to SPARK-Interfax, the microelectronics design center MCST (develops processors of the Elbrus line) established Elbrus LLC on December 24. MCST received 40% in LLC, 35% from Scientific Research Center for Digital Technologies LLC (SRC CT) and 25% from Institute of Public-Private Planning LLC (PPP Institute). Konstantin Zykin is named as the company’s CEO. The authorized capital of the LLC is 100 thousand rubles, the main activity is “software development”.

Judging by SPARK-Interfax data, NIC CT is 70% owned by an entrepreneur from Omsk, Svyatoslav Kapustin. He owns a number of businesses in the mining, rental and trading sectors. Another 25% of the company is owned by the PPP Institute and the remaining 5% is owned by the SIC CT itself. Judging by the official website, the company develops software, solutions in the field of artificial intelligence and software and hardware systems.

In turn, in PPP Institute LLC, CEO Elena Antipina and Eduard Tseyko each have 37.5%, the remaining 25% belongs to the Center for Interregional Investment Development, the ultimate owners of which, through a chain of legal entities, are Elena Antipina, Alexander Tseyko and Vladimir Kalganov.

The Institute is positioned as an expert center for solving “tasks in the field of integrated regional development through public-private partnership mechanisms.” Ms. Antipina participates in forums, where she calls herself, among other things, “the head of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Dual-Use Clusters of the Board of the Military-Industrial Complex of the Russian Federation.”

NIC CT, according to SPARK-Interfax, has no revenue, while the PPP Institute has a net profit of 8 million rubles. with revenue of 13 million rubles.

Ms. Antipina explained to Kommersant that the new LLC was created “to develop and promote to the market domestic high-performance and safe software and hardware systems based on Elbrus microprocessors and special software from the National Research Center for Digital Technologies, which maximizes the technological capabilities inherent in their architecture.” She added that the company is aimed at import substitution of automated control systems “with real-time operation in the industrial automation market, including at critical information infrastructure facilities.”

Alexander Tseyko clarified that the production of PAK is planned in a new “dual-use cluster, which is currently being formed in Moscow and the Moscow region.” He did not disclose the timing of the launch and the amount of investment in the project.

The MCST declined to comment.

Manufacturers of electronics and microelectronics interviewed by Kommersant claim that MCST partners do not have their own production facilities, and “virtually nothing is known” about their developments on the market.

A Kommersant source in the industry notes that after last year’s Presidential Decree No. 166 (implying a transition to trusted PACs at CII facilities), “market participants began to work in this direction,” attract investments in their projects and participate in the development of a regulatory framework on the topic: “ While there are no clear requirements for regulating CII, many use Elbrus as a symbol of trust and technological sovereignty in order to make their proposals and ideas for regulating CII more significant.”

Nikita Korolev