Revenues mean nothing without positive equity earnings, especially so without a viable path to get there. Without a clear path, how do you justify the valuation? Lol.

Uber and Amazon had a very logical path to get there.

The reinvestment is so high that once you tack that onto the earnings youre in a fat negative. What does that mean? You will eat into the cash balance and eventually have to go raise more.

> No what's driving much of the valuations is the biggest leap in human technology since the internet and skyrocketing revenues as a result

That is a 1999-like bubble and how you get 75 - 90% of these companies crashing when the music stops.

> Private companies soaring to $100m ARR in 12 months is commonplace now. That's what's driving the valuation.

We don't even know if that is even real to begin with. Even if it is, that revenue can be lost as quickly as it is gained.

This happened to Hopin and other companies who grew extremely quickly and then their valuations crashed.

The questions you should be asking yourself is even after looking at the competition, what is the retention and the switching cost of these said "$100m ARR in 12 months" companies if a competitor moves into their core business?

We don’t know how sticky that revenue is, or if it’s going to be a commodity in the long run. Similar things used to happen in ad-tech before investors got wise that there was no moat.