2 Sources
2 Sources
[1]
Silicon Valley's hottest AI metric is also its least trusted - The Economic Times
The co-founder of Cluely -- an Andreessen Horowitz-backed startup with the motto, "Cheat on everything" -- ignited a controversy earlier this month after confessing to lying to a reporter about his company's performance on a popular Silicon Valley metric: annual recurring revenue, or ARR. Cluely CEO Roy Lee told a TechCrunch reporter the company's ARR doubled in one week to $7 million. Later on X, Lee said he "got a random cold call from some woman asking about numbers and told her some BS," calling it "the only blatantly dishonest thing I've said publicly online." He added that the post would serve as "my formal retraction," adding that the actual number was $5.2 million. While Lee may be unusually bold, taking liberties with ARR is common for artificial intelligence startups, Silicon Valley investors say. A measurement of current sales extrapolated over 12 months, the metric is squishy enough that it leaves plenty of room for interpretation. Even as it's become ubiquitous in the AI era -- it's also become one of the least trusted yardsticks for gauging a startup's growth. "The startup world has always been a bit more of a Wild West," said Chuck Eesley, a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University. "There are no audit requirements, there are no SEC definitions, so basically there's no cop on the beat other than the VCs and acquirers doing their due diligence. So essentially, the number can mean whatever the founder needs it to mean when they walk in to do a deal or do a fundraise." The basic components of ARR calculations are simple: Take one month's revenue from recurring contracts and multiply by 12 for an annual projection. It's also not to be confused with "annual run rate revenue" -- a similar, perhaps even more popular metric with an identical initialism, but that doesn't concern itself with whether the sales are recurring. Companies reporting ARR for individual products or overall sales have included Anthropic, Glean and Cursor, the coding company investors have called the fastest-growing startup of all time in terms of revenue. Meanwhile, the recurring revenue of specific OpenAI products has become a closely watched number for media outlets. There's nothing inherently wrong with tracking ARR, and if a company is adding new subscription clients each month, it can present a more accurate picture of revenue than looking backward at actual sales. Until recently, ARR was thought of as a trusty benchmark for software businesses, particularly those selling predictable services to other businesses, said Darren Yee, a senior venture associate at NYU's Innovation Venture Fund. "This worked really well when subscription pricing was very straightforward," Yee said. "And that's been true for a long time, basically up until AI." But with recurring revenue, there's enough leeway in how exactly to measure it -- like what contracts count and what time period to use -- that it's relatively easy for startups to massage the figures. The numbers can be particularly variable if revenue fluctuates from week to week, or some recurring subscriptions lapse. For example, Stanford's Eesley said that plenty of AI business customers are eager to try out new tools, but drop them after a trial period. That kind of revenue can be counted as "recurring," even though the contract doesn't renew. "A lot of companies want to experiment with AI these days because they recognize that it's a big trend, it's a big shift," Eesley said. "There's a lot of budget there for experimentation, but not all of those experiments pan out into actual recurring revenue." Another reason ARR isn't as reliable today is that startups are often charging customers based on how much they use the product, shifting away from more regular subscription models. "Customers may have a nominal subscription number but are paying mostly for usage. This gives very lumpy revenue attribution in the early days," Yee said. "You can't just take one month of subscriptions and multiply by 12 and get what that represents in an annual contract, because it probably won't play out that way." Is recurring revenue still a useful measurement? Cluely's Lee doesn't think so. In an expletive-laden email to Bloomberg, Lee expressed his distaste for the media, as well as ARR as a metric for startup growth. "What the f--- even is ARR for a company that is less than a year old?" he wrote. "The calculation doesn't even make f---ing sense for us, it's a fake accounting number developed by fake accounting people." Lee added that his measurement of the metric was changing 20% week to week. Yet there may not be many better options, and more elaborate auditing processes could be more trouble than they're worth. "I think we should be careful about imposing a lot of auditing and accounting costs on small startups and stifling a lot of the innovation and experimentation that should be going on," Eesley said. Instead, Chris Sloan, co-chair of Baker Donelson's emerging companies group, recommends broad transparency. "Always err on the side of disclosing too much rather than too little," Sloan said. Even if it's not technically securities fraud, he added, "If you have broken trust with a potential investor, you're never getting that back."
[2]
AI Firms' Annual Recurring Revenue Metrics Draw Scrutiny | PYMNTS.com
However, this increasingly common practice has become one of the least-trusted measurements of success in the AI space, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday (April 7). "The startup world has always been a bit more of a Wild West," Chuck Eesley, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University, told Bloomberg. "There are no audit requirements, there are no SEC definitions, so basically there's no cop on the beat other than the VCs and acquirers doing their due diligence," he said, so that a number can "mean whatever the founder needs it to mean" during dealmaking or fundraising. Annual recurring revenue (ARR) calculations work like this: a company takes a single month's revenue from recurring contracts and multiples it by 12 for a year-long projection. Companies that have used this practice include Anthropic and OpenAI. The Bloomberg report noted that there is nothing inherently wrong with measuring growth this way, and if a company adds new subscribers each month, it can offer a more accurate glimpse into revenue than looking at past sales. Darren Yee, a senior venture associate at NYU's Innovation Venture Fund, told Bloomberg that -- until recently -- ARR was seen as a reliable gauge for software businesses, especially those selling predictable services to other companies. "This worked really well when subscription pricing was very straightforward," Yee said. "And that's been true for a long time, basically up until AI." However, recurring revenue gives companies a lot of freedom in how precisely to measure, meaning it's easy for startups to juke their numbers, which can vary if revenue swings from week to week or recurring subscriptions lapse. Eesley said many AI business customers are eager to try new tools, but only on a trial basis before cancelling their subscriptions. Revenue from that trial period can be considered as "recurring," even if a contract doesn't renew. In other AI news, OpenAI issued a report this week calling for an industrial policy that can manage the challenges presented by the technology. "As AI reshapes work, knowledge, and production, incremental updates won't be enough," the company said in a LinkedIn post announcing the report. "The scale of change demands new ideas and institutions to ensure this transition benefits everyone."
Share
Share
Copy Link
Silicon Valley's AI firms are increasingly questioned over their Annual Recurring Revenue figures, with startups taking liberties in how they calculate and report the metric. A recent controversy involving Cluely's CEO admitting to lying about ARR numbers has highlighted how the metric has become one of the least trusted yardsticks for measuring startup growth, despite its widespread use across companies like OpenAI and Anthropic.
A controversy erupted when Roy Lee, CEO of Andreessen Horowitz-backed Cluely, admitted to fabricating his company's Annual Recurring Revenue figures. Lee initially told a TechCrunch reporter that Cluely's ARR doubled in one week to $7 million, only to later retract on X, calling it "the only blatantly dishonest thing I've said publicly online" and revealing the actual number was $5.2 million
1
. While Lee's boldness stands out, Silicon Valley investors say taking liberties with ARR has become common practice among AI firms, transforming what was once a reliable benchmark into one of the least trusted yardsticks for gauging startup growth.Source: ET
"The startup world has always been a bit more of a Wild West," said Chuck Eesley, a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University. "There are no audit requirements, there are no SEC definitions, so basically there's no cop on the beat other than the VCs and acquirers doing their due diligence. So essentially, the number can mean whatever the founder needs it to mean when they walk in to do a deal or do a fundraise"
1
. This lack of oversight has created an environment where scrutiny of ARR metrics has intensified, particularly as the measurement becomes ubiquitous across AI startup business models. Companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Glean, and Cursor have all reported ARR for individual products or overall sales, making the metric a closely watched number for media outlets and investors alike1
.The basic ARR calculations are straightforward: take one month's revenue from recurring contracts and multiply by 12 for an annual projection
2
. Until recently, ARR was considered a trusty benchmark for software businesses, particularly those selling predictable services to other businesses. "This worked really well when subscription pricing was very straightforward," said Darren Yee, a senior venture associate at NYU's Innovation Venture Fund. "And that's been true for a long time, basically up until AI"1
. The untrustworthiness of Annual Recurring Revenue stems from the leeway in how exactly to measure it—what contracts count, what time period to use—making it relatively easy for startups to massage figures, especially when revenue fluctuates week to week or subscription models lapse1
.Related Stories
The shift toward usage-based pricing has made ARR particularly unreliable for AI firms. "Customers may have a nominal subscription number but are paying mostly for usage. This gives very lumpy revenue attribution in the early days," Yee explained. "You can't just take one month of subscriptions and multiply by 12 and get what that represents in an annual contract, because it probably won't play out that way"
1
. Additionally, many AI business customers eagerly try new tools during trial periods but drop them afterward. This trial revenue can be counted as "recurring," even though contracts don't renew, contributing to inflating ARR figures2
.
Source: PYMNTS
The unreliability of ARR metrics places additional pressure on VCs to conduct thorough due diligence for VCs during fundraising rounds. Lee himself questioned the metric's validity for young companies, stating his measurement was changing 20% week to week
1
. Yet despite these concerns, more elaborate auditing processes could burden small startups. "I think we should be careful about imposing a lot of auditing and accounting costs on small startups and stifling a lot of the innovation and experimentation that should be going on," Eesley cautioned1
. Investors and acquirers must now navigate this tension, relying on deeper analysis rather than surface-level metrics to assess true startup growth potential in an era where the traditional measures no longer capture the complexity of AI business models.Summarized by
Navi
04 Mar 2026•Business and Economy

16 Aug 2025•Business and Economy

27 Sept 2024

1
Policy and Regulation

2
Technology

3
Policy and Regulation
