I think the jury's out on the product so far. It does seems to get some interesting properties (extremely high yield strength combined with some ductability) I'm not an expert on armor fabrication, but normal batches of armor plate are much thicker and their process isn't automatically scalable (The rapid (flash) production of banite isn't going to be as easy as the steel gets thicker.)
I'd be more convinced if they quit citing locations of the test, and started citing the actual laboratories and provided the test reports. Does this armor still work at 0 deg F?, -30 F?, 130 deg F. I've conducted penetration tests at a major military base. Essentially some friends of mine and I shot at old police department vests (they wanted something done to the vests to make them obviously unusable). Just because testing was done on a military base, even a famous one, doesn't mean it was scientific, or even done with the knowledge of DOD. The PD provided 200 rds of 357, as the chief was curious if the out of date vests had any significant failure (they didn't in 200 rds). That was as close to scientific as we got, except for maybe counting how many vests a .223 could go through.
Also note, for body armor, their numbers are significantly worse than ESAPI plates.
If the product is what it claims to be, it would have a lot of potential for structural applications where weight is critical (aerospace, vehicles, etc). But they need a lot more information like results of welding, fatigue, forming, temperature resistance, etc.
I'd be a lot more impressed if the test was done by a community college graduate at HP White, then a bunch of vague references to PhDs, a state university, and some famous military base. Also be nice if they claimed some sort of industry standard measurement (V0, V50) instead of saying "has stopped". Is that like V99.99 (It stoped one bullet, but 9999 made it through.)
One is kind of reminded of Dragon Skin.