131–140 of 529 posts
$2b/month which is $24b/year. Not as much as I expected considering they were at $20b by end of 2025.[0] They only added $4b since? Anthropic had $19b by end of February 2026 and they added $6b in February alone.[1] This means if they added another $6b in March, they're higher than OpenAI already. However, I heard that OpenAI and Anthropic report revenue in a different way. OpenAI takes 20% of revenue from Azure sale…
$2b/month which is $24b/year. Not as much as I expected considering they were at $20b by end of 2025.[0] They only added $4b since? Anthropic had $19b by end of February 2026 and they added $6b in February alone.[1] This means if they added another $6b in March, they're higher than OpenAI already. However, I heard that OpenAI and Anthropic report revenue in a different way. OpenAI takes 20% of revenue from Azure sale…
Both will do public reporting only when they IPO[4] and have regulatory requirement to do so every quarter. For private companies[1] reporting to investors there are no fixed rules really[3]
Even for public companies, there is fair amount of leeway on how GAAP[2]expects recognize revenue. The two ways you highlight is how you account for GMV- Gross Merchandise Value.
The operating margin becomes very less so multiples on absolute revenue gets impacted when you consider GMV as revenue.
For example if you consider GMV in revenue then AMZN only trades at ~3x ($2.25T/$~800B )to say MSFT($2.75T/$300B) and GOOG ($3.4T/$400B) who both trade at 9x their revenue.
While roughly similar in maturity, size, growth potential and even large overlap of directly competing businesses, there is huge (3x / 9x) difference because AMZN's number includes with GMV in retail that GOOG and MSFT do not have in same size in theirs.
---
[1] There are still a lot of rules reporting to IRS and other government entities, but that information we (and news media) get is from investors not leaks from government reporting - which would be typically be private and illegal to disclose to public.
[2] And the Big 4 who sign off on the audit for companies prefer to account for it.
[3] As long as it is not explicit fraud or cooking the books, i.e. they are transparent about their methods.
[4] Strictly this would be covered in the prospectus(S-1) few weeks before going public and that is first real look we get into the details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why should only profits matter? if i had a killer product today that i just need to sell tomorrow, wouldn't you still invest today knowing i'll probably only start to make money tomorrow (or perhaps next week)? the expectation is that they'll eventually make money. they can't raise forever. only startups are not profitable for a few years. but most companies that have existed for a long while have been profitable and…
not if your product is selling two dollars for one dollar and as soon as you'll start to charge more I'll switch to one of your twenty competitors profit isn't a function of having a killer product, it's a function of having no competition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having large funding rounds contingent on meeting milestones is common. Always has been.
It just makes comparing funding rounds hard to understand, since money in the bank is money in the bank, and a lot of the "committed capital if you reach a milestone" is capital that would be easy to get if you reached that milestone, if it is sufficiently advanced, and has enough outs, etc., that you may as well have just raised another round in the future.
The milestones aren’t a hard-stop that forbids the previous funding round participants from providing the money if they still choose. It’s just an out.
No, they didn't raise $122B as the HN title implies. A big chunk of that $122B is a "maybe" that depends on various things that need to happen in the future. Oh, man... I can't wait to see where this is going. Might not be pretty after all.
> Today, we closed our latest funding round with $122 billion in committed capital at a post money valuation of $852 billion. A couple things that stand out to me about this is the use of the phrase "committed capital", which only sounds like a promise that could break from various circumstances, and the valuation of their funding keeps changing so it sounds like a max rather than the valuation every investor investe…
That’s typical. Large funding rounds usually aren’t delivered as one single giant lump sum into the bank account. The capital is committed in stages that can depend on hitting milestones or goals. This is done even in smaller startup funding rounds some times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody apparently believes that capital is worth investing into anything but AI. This is the main reason we see this insane investment into AI imo. If you imagine having lots of money, where should you invest that currently? Housing market: Seems very overvalued (at least in germany). Also with the current uncertainty and inflation its hard to make an investment that pays back over 20-30 years. So building is also…
Looking around, and especially forward, it would be military tech, e.g. [1], and its supply chain, e.g. [2] :-\ Valuations are not as crazy, but I bet there'll going to be a lot of demand in the coming decade, unfortunately. Chip production, too, of course, but it's overflowing with money already, apparently. It's growing though, because there are real actual shortages of stuff like RAM and SSDs, there's money to be…
Only viable if you’re okay with the ethical implications of funding war.
> Today, we closed our latest funding round with $122 billion in committed capital at a post money valuation of $852 billion. A couple things that stand out to me about this is the use of the phrase "committed capital", which only sounds like a promise that could break from various circumstances, and the valuation of their funding keeps changing so it sounds like a max rather than the valuation every investor investe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just makes comparing funding rounds hard to understand, since money in the bank is money in the bank, and a lot of the "committed capital if you reach a milestone" is capital that would be easy to get if you reached that milestone, if it is sufficiently advanced, and has enough outs, etc., that you may as well have just raised another round in the future.
That’s logically inconsistent. If the company was performing poorly enough that they couldn’t meet their funding milestones from a previous round, they’re not going to have an easy time raising the same money in a future round. The milestones aren’t a hard-stop that forbids the previous funding round participants from providing the money if they still choose. It’s just an out.
> We are now generating $2B in revenue per month What??
It's going to be pretty hard to get a good answer to whatever you're having difficulties understanding if you can't be bothered to write more than a word.