So again, I think that’s just something to keep in mind that we do have to kind of work through that each quarter. But we are optimistic about where that will come out, both for the balance of the year and the contribution it will make next year.
Omid Farokhzad: I think the second part of your question was outlook for next year. Again, I would say it’s still — every week, every month, we are continuing to face challenges and headwinds. I think we continue to like our pipeline and where it stands and the number of opportunities we have. I think the question is just the timing of those and how quickly those can or can’t move through the funnel based on the funding at the various customers and capital budgets and that type of thing. So I think we’re cautious certainly around next year. Again, I think it will probably be a year that’s more back-half loaded. But obviously, we’ll have a lot more information and data on our year-end call. But again, I think it’s similar to other companies out there in our sector.
It’s just a tricky environment right now in terms of what people are doing and then you layer on the fact that we’re in new technology. And I think that, again, just causes us to continue to be optimistic, but appropriately conservative as well as we look into next year.
Operator: Our next question comes from Tejas Savant from Morgan Stanley.
Tejas Savant: Just a couple of quick follow-ups on the STAC and SIP sort of initiatives. Do you view that as essentially sort of sufficient in terms of mitigating some of the macro headwinds here? Or is there anything else you’re contemplating internally at the moment just in terms of tweaking your go-to-market on a go-forward basis?
Omid Farokhzad: Yes, Tejas, the STAC and SIP to me were meant to be a market opening strategy. In other words, as you remember, we launched — we were adamant about a couple of principles. We said we don’t want to be in the service business. We want to have a distributed model. And at the same time, we were introducing a first-of-its-kind product, the like of which did not exist in the marketplace. And at the same time, there was a total paucity of data that showed the customer what is possible to do with the proteograph. Now we managed to have a commercial success of $6.6 million in the first year. That was a limited release year and then $15.5 million the year after. But ultimately, the pace of publication from customer was lower than I had hoped.
And what the STAC aimed to do was to let a customer get access to data much, much faster than bringing an instrument in-house, ramping up of studies of scale, getting to data and publishing it. I think that thesis or that hypothesis proved to be correct because there is so much demand for the capacity that we built in the STAC. By the way, we might have to actually expand that capacity because I don’t want the customer experience to be such that they have to wait a long time in order to go from expressing an interest to get a sample process to us giving them data. So I think in that context [Technical Difficulty] customer access data [Technical Difficulty] different problem. And by the way, in terms of the customer profile, the STAC and the SIP also in the type of customer profile that we addressed.
STAC was mostly geared toward targeting a [indiscernible] customer that is not really a mass spec user just wants the data. And I think eventually with understanding of our learning side of what comes from that type of biological data, they may eventually become a mass spec user or they may bring the proteograph in-house [Technical Difficulty] and then send the peptide to the STAC to get processed. But really, the STAC is geared toward that genomic customer. This [Technical Difficulty] is mostly geared towards the proteomic customer or the traditional mass spec. The business model largely is a CapEx business model, they invest a lot in terms of a mass spec. But then they really don’t have a lot of capital left over for consumable, which is really required with our business model.
