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 sales and reports revenue on that 20%. Anthropic reports all revenue, including AWS's share.[2]

[0]https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-cfo-says-annualized-...

[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/anthropic-arr-surges-19-billi...

[2]https://x.com/EthanChoi7/status/2036638459868385394

"Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return."

  - Not advancing digital intelligence
  - While locking people into a superapp
  - Because they are further constrained to generating financial returns

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 invested at.

"The round totaled $122 billion of committed capital, up from the $110 billion figure that the company announced in February. SoftBank co-led the round alongside other investors, including Andreessen Horowitz and D. E. Shaw Ventures, OpenAI said."

This IPO, if anyone underwrites it, is going to fleece retail so hard. Better make it a SPAC with the help of Chamath and Cantor & Fitzgerald.

They mention this line in different forms a couple of times in the article. It’s clear they’re pretty rattled about Anthropic’s momentum in enterprise, I wonder how confident they really are in this rationale.

Oh, man... I can't wait to see where this is going. Might not be pretty after all.

iykyk

Edit: Why did this go from their press release to a news story?

the whole thing did not yet crash because it seems they can still promise even more without actually delivering definite results

At least they're throwing consumers a bone via the ARK deal. It's crazy how little AI exposure is available to anyone who isn't already wealthy and/or connected.

I am from a generation that still sits behind a desktop computer when making "big purchases." I can't even buy a flight on my phone. I am so much less likely to want to have an AI agent do that for me.

Then the idea that daily consumption of these products will drive people to use them more at work... I have a very different life outside of work. My use of AI outside of work is exceedingly different to what I use it for at work.

I sometimes feel wildly out of touch. But sometimes I view this as the VR moment. To me there are some things that I think may always be preferable to do outside of that ecosystem. And for me, a lot of tasks that 'agents' enable are small enough or important enough that I want to do them myself.

I don't think I'll ever be comfortable allowing an agent to call me a taxi, or order food on my behalf. Because the convenience of asking for food isn't worth the chance it'll mess up, and opening an app and looking at a menu is simpler.

I also think we're coming to a moment where we can start identifying the markers of AI generated content on sight. And I think there's a growing animosity to it. I might be comfortable asking AI something, but when I am looking for or searching for other content, seeing AI content markers make me angry at this point.

To finish, I do just sort of straight up hate the idea that we're comparing this moment to the invention of electricity. It's on the face of it absurd.

They have pieces from paper of folks saying they may put up funds or goods and services in that amount. But it’s important to remember that:

1. While they are “raising” commitments others are backing out of deals (see Disney, various data center things). Big deals announced to major fanfare are falling through.

2. They slashed capital expenditure for the future after previously boasting about all the commitments. This is turning into bonkers math of X + Y - X + Z + W - 1/2 of Y = ? On trying to keep track of what’s actually “raised / real” vs what was PR puffery that folks ran away from later.

3. Circular financing still seems to be going on. Big difference of here’s cash, have fun and various “commitments” and balance sheet games that seem to still be going on.

Net net this all still looks very scary and iffy at best.

I am very much onboard with AI within my workflow. I just don't really see a future where openai/anthropic are the absolute front runners for devs though. Maybe OpenAI does just have the better vision by targeting the general public instead, and just competing to become the next google before google can just stay google?

What is their next step to ensure local models never overtake them? If i could use opus 4.6 as a local model isntead and wrap it in someone else's cli tool, i 100% do it today. are the future model's gonna be so far beyond in capability that this sounds foolish? the top models are more than enough to keep up with my own features before i can think of more... so how do they stretch further than that?

A side note i keep thinking about, how impossible is a world where open source base models are collectively trained similar to a proof of work style pool, and then smaller companies simply spin off their own finishing touches or whatever based on that base model? am i thinking of thinks too simplistically? is this not a possibility?

That would mean the only way to increase growth would be to charge more per token and to get the existing people to use more tokens. Both of which seem to be only what mature companies do when trying to squeeze the cash cow for all it's worth.

It also explains why they're trying to stuff AI into everything, to keep the numbers up, and to get everyone to try and pay them money.

Have a question on health symptoms? You must subscribe to openAI health

Have a question on math? You must subscribe to openAI math

The only way they can manage this type of monetization is a lot of compute to process outputs.

The exchanges are bending head over heels to accommodate these IPOs[1] and make our retirement index funds the exit-liquidity strategy to the thievery of pump and dump actors that buy it low and then sell high? As i understand the way thievery works is:

1. List at many multiples of market valuation on an exchange. So if you company is just 10 billion$ nasdaq and theives collude and say "can make it 100 billion..".

2. Lots of institutional investors and rich billionaires get stock options.

3. All market weighted index funds — aka all *your* low expense ratio ETF money — have to re-balance and buy them, raising their value: the exit-liquidity event

4. Rich A**** get richer by making an profit by selling higher.

[1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers...

> The OpenAI flywheel is simple. More compute drives more intelligent models. More intelligent models drive better products. Better products drive faster adoption, more revenue and more cashflow.

FTX had a "flywheel". It fell off. Being saddled with hundreds of billions of debt makes this situation ten times worse.

So, the real question here is: Is OpenAI Netscape, or are they Google?

Last announcement I reckon pre-IPO and the inevitable collapse.

Or OpenAI pays off it's investors? Lol.

I am not sure if I believe in the Singularity or not. But it's kind of the best story ever to support the game of musical chairs that is Silicon Valley investing.

Not gonna lie, I hate those announcements lately. It's full bullshit mode, worse than the Dot-com bubble. Numbers don't make any sense, any more, and yet journalist don't ask any real questions...

unless you're a private investors in these preIPO, the whole plan is to get big enough, get forced entry into indexes, and leave early with everyone else holding the bag.

Every joule of human energy is energy that could have been better spent to produce AI slop for other AI agents to consume.

Their latest desperate bid for relevance is a plugin for Claude Code that uses Codex as a second opinion. Please clap.

Doesn't really strike me as the kind of statement that comes out of a company that can sustain a ~$1T market cap...

-x-

In short, the musical chairs are still playing... Keep on walkin' round, y'all, till the music stops.

/s

I wonder what the bet is here, long term that valuation is going to have to go up even further for this investment to make sense so they're clearly betting that at IPO time they'll be able to convincingly demonstrate AGI or something extremely close to it. That's a pretty risky bet, and meanwhile, whatever they come up with will be a commodity within a year. And that's besides OpenAI no longer being seen as the dominant player or the player with the best edge.

I am so sick of AI writing.

What??

They raised $122B.

122 / 12*2 = 5 years to get your money back (I simplify, I know revenue <> profit)

They are so big that almost no one can afford to acquire them. It is similar as someone would like to acquire MSFT or AAPL.

WCGW?