When one is under the grip of irrational exuberance and FOMO due diligence goes out the window.
For example look at Sequoia’s investment into FTX and article about Sam that accompanied.
If for no other reason than they would rather spend their days procrastinating on everything else, so they can obsess over some of the most interesting numbers they will ever see.
ARR seems like a interesting concept which hides away the concrete details and is counting on a futuristic possible commitment especially for companies at this early stages. The crucial detail is probably the money being spent, that is what is fueling this sale of equity at this point.
Yes, it is a meaningful financial measure of actual progress, exactly where progress is most needed for a new company.
> which hides away the concrete details
A normal metric isn't a magic trick. It's just the number it is.
> The crucial detail is probably the money being spent
Accelerating (not just fast) revenue growth at an astounding rate, with absolute numbers that are enormous for a new company, bonkers for a 2500 employee startup [0], is the crucial "detail".
There are lots of companies with deep pockets and compute, making great AI efforts with teams of smart people, that would love to be doing, but are not doing, what Anthropic is doing and doing well. That might be the second crucial detail.
If you think investment banks will catch them during the IPO: They have launched many overpriced IPOs in 1999/2000 and also want a high IPO price.
Not to mention even a total shitshow from an obvious crackpot like Theranos got $1.2 billion total funding, and a 9B valuation. Or FTX.
What we are talking about is entirely based on this one term in the announcement: run-rate revenue. This is a meaningless term just like how “clinically proven” for vitamins is a way for the companies to use weasel words to imply something without truly being able to back it up, but also not actually lying. There is no legal definition of “clinically proven” so, what exactly would you sue them for? The same thing is true for run-rate revenue. They can cherry pick numbers to use to generate the run-rate revenue value and they are not lying, but this isn’t exactly honest either. We have no transparency and run-rate revenue is not an accounting term.
This goes back to my entire point, this is a vibe. This announcement does not provide much in the way of substance, so a reader will take it to say whatever they want.
IDK if these tricks would work anymore but then again fraud is legal now so who knows.
In the US?
Hahaha, that was a good one, buddy.
1) I have a new extra cost 2) How does that make me more profit, and improved cashflow
I know I'll be bombarded with metrics about productivity, feature completion, bug fixes etc. But someone is going to have to tell me how that equates to more sales. And who is going to do that? I'll be worried that the feature wishlist will just creep up now we can handle more throughput, and yet everyone will be telling me that I don't need to worry about the lack of new customers this quarter, one more new feature and we will catch up in Q4. You can see how that could make one grumpy. Then when the sales don't come, I'll tell the CTO that they need to balance the books, if they want to use expensive tools to make each developer more productive then they will need fewer developers...
...but I don't want that, I want more great features that people will pay for, and faster. But they have to pay for themselves.
Update: this inspired a note on my blog: https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/29/anthropic/
This one client, then, is 12.8% of Anthropic's run-rate revenue? That does not exactly fill me with confidence that it's a meaningful number. Doesn't this suggest run-rate revenue will fall off a cliff if Anthropic customers start applying cost controls?
As an anecdote, Github is changing their copilot plan to usage based billing next month. They released a tool that allows their users to estimate what their bills will look like under the new plan based on their past usage. There are some screenshots online from users showing their plans will go from $40/month to $3-5k/month. I imagine this is happening everywhere. These tools absolutely can do more than they were capable of just six months ago. But if the true costs are as high as it appears, folks are going to be much more judicious with how they use them moving forward.
If they really did count that one customer as $6B it means they've gone from $30B in April to a mere $41B in May.
im really not sure why he keeps parroting on about this. its all irrelevant frankly. companies play games. non-gaap revenue recognition, adjusted operating income.... boo-ya.
wait for the somewhat official doc's to come out, then its worth talking about.
> They are not obligated to be truthful here
In my new job I haven't written a single line by hand. I now almost entirely work in claude code / codex and in github PRs. Occasionally I open vscode to read code, but very rarely. My company probably spends ~$100 a day for my token use. I'm not even going crazy with parallelization or subagents and such.
I 100% believe the demand growth based on my personal experience.