this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
897 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
88698 readers
2970 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The $20B difference is based on an accounting fraud. $50B vs $70B is like if GM would count the total of what buyers pay for cars ($70B) instead of their real revenue ($50B) of what their dealers pay them. Monumental fraudster BS came out overnight to resume the bubble frenzy though.
The number they used for annualized revenue for these rapidly growing companies is taking the most recent month's revenue and multiplying it by 12. It's not a guarantee about the future, but it is misleading.
The extreme version is taking a good week's revenue and multiplying it by 52, or even worse, multiplying a day by 365. Those are outright dishonest. But not accounting fraud, because it's not accounting at all.
Annualized Revenue rate is a made up number, that is a separate accounting fraud, for being a purely selective cherry picked time frame that gets multiplied.
The reason they are changing their made up number from $70B to $50B is because they used to include their partners' revenue (extra $20b annualized) as their own.
It is fundamentally a projection about the future using recent results, and transparent in its methodology. It's shit methodology, but it's not hiding anything. So I don't know that I'd classify it as fraud.
Playing games with "revenue" is another problem, but because that's misleading about the past, and making an active decision on whether to classify money that was never gonna end up in their pockets as revenue share to partners or cost of revenue. Companies sometimes engage in shenanigans where they give discounts but classify the discounts as marketing/sales expenses rather than foregone revenue. That kind of stuff strikes me as more squarely in the category of accounting shenanigans.
To qualify as transparent means disclosing "based on x days in this date range". That is not disclosed.
What are you talking about? The 20 billion difference is based on a "leaked internal memo" that suggested annual revenue of 70 billion. And a memo to investors in September that they expect a 50 billion revenue. In short. It's based on a leaked previous estimation compared to a more recent one.