How long before we hear about “Our Amazing Journey”?
On the other hand, I would rather see someone like Bun have a successful exit where the founders seem to have started out with a passion project, got funding, built something out they were excited about and then exit than yet another AI company by non technical founders who were built with the sole purpose of getting funding and then exit.
"You buy me this, next time I save you on that", etc...
"Raised $19 million Series A led by Khosla Ventures + $7 million"
"Today, Bun makes $0 in revenue."
Everything is almost public domain (MIT) and can be forked without paying a single dollar.
Questionable to claim that the technology is the real reason this was bought.
You have no responsibility for an unrelated company's operations; if that was important to them they could have paid their talent more.
Reminds me of when Tron, the crypto company, bought BitTorrent.
I don't think they're doing that.
Estimates I've seen have their inference margin at ~60% - there's one from Morgan Stanley in this article, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-anthropic-billions-cl...
A large portion of the many tens of billions of dollars they have at their disposal (OpenAI alone raised 40 billion in April) is probably going toward this ambition—basically a huge science experiment. For example, when an AI lab offers an individual researcher a $250 million pay package, it can only be because they hope that the researcher can help them with something very ambitious: there's no need to pay that much for a single employee to help them reduce the costs of serving the paying customers they have now.
The point is that you can be right that Anthropic is making money on the marginal new user of Claude, but Anthropic's investors might still get soaked if the huge science experiment does not bear fruit.
Not really. If the technology stalls where it is, AI still have a sizable chunk of the dollars previously paid to coders, transcribers, translators and the like.
Not estimate, assumption.
From an ecosystem perspective, acquihires trash the funding landscape. And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward. But that isn’t relevant if the individual pay-off is big.
An analogous example off the top of my head is Shopify hired Rafael Franca to work on Rails full-time.
Every employee is a flight risk if you don't pay them a competitive salary; that's just FUD from VC bros who are getting their playbook (sell the company to the highest bidder and let early employees get screwed) used against them.
Not relevant to acquihires, who typically aren’t hired away with promises of a salary but instead large signing bonuses, et cetera, and aren’t typically hired individually but as teams. (You can’t solve key man problems with compensation alone, despite what every CEO compensation committee will lead one to think.)
> that's just FUD
What does FUD mean in this context? I’m precisely relaying a personal anecdote.
Now you're being nitpicky. Take the vesting period of the sign on bonus, divide the bonus amount by that and add it to the regular salary and you get the effective salary.
> aren’t typically hired individually but as teams.
So? VC bros seem to forget the labor market is also a free market as soon it hurts their cashout opportunity.
> What does FUD mean in this context? I’m precisely relaying a personal anecdote.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Your anecdote is little more than a scare story. It can be summarized as: if you don't let us cashout this time, we'll hold this against you in some undefined future.
anthropic's unit margins are fine, many lovable-like businesses are not.
But since they own equity in the current company, you can give them a ton of money by buying out that equity/paying acquisition bonuses that are conditional on staying for specific amounts of time, etc. And your current staff doesn't feel left out because "it's an acquisition" the way they would if you just paid some engineers 10x or 100x what you pay them.
The best one is from the Information, but they're behind a paywall so not useful to link to. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/anthropic-projects-7...
These aren't the same things and nobody negotating and acquisition or acqhihire converts in this way. (I've done both.)
> Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Your anecdote is little more than a scare story. It can be summarized as: if you don't let us cashout this time, we'll hold this against you in some undefined future
It's a personal anecdote. There shouldn't be any uncertainty about what I personally believe. I've literally negotiated acquihires. If you're getting a multimillion dollar payout, you shouldn't be particularly concerned about your standing in the next founding team unless you're a serial entrepreneur.
Broader online comment, invoking FUD seems like shorthand for objecting to something without knowing (or wanting to say) why.
Incorrect - that was the fraudulent NAV.
An estimate for true cash inflow that was lost is about $20 billion (which is still an enormous number!)
This is (I would have thought) obviously different from selling dollars for $0.50, which is a plan with zero probability of profit.
Edit: perhaps the question was meant to be about how Bun fits in? But the context of this sub-thread has veered to achieving a $7 billion revenue.
Devs can write at a very fast rate with ai.
You still need to check it or at least be aware it's a translation. The problem of extra puns remains.
我不会说任何语言，我否认一切