There S1 claims so, but, also, it’s financials cut off… suspiciously right as a bunch of pre payments for their services came in, and before they deferred payments for compute went out.
Except that it doesn’t? They claimed 33bn in revenue, but they had 104bn net loss. So no, they were not profitable. In their IPO they literally claim to not be profitable and that they don’t ensure they’ll be profitable “in the future”. Not the near future, just the future as a whole.
So they were claiming to have been net profitable on certain things in q2, which again, more to the point, is them trying to shine a turd and make it look like they’ve got a future.
You sure 'bout that?
There S1 claims so, but, also, it’s financials cut off… suspiciously right as a bunch of pre payments for their services came in, and before they deferred payments for compute went out.
Except that it doesn’t? They claimed 33bn in revenue, but they had 104bn net loss. So no, they were not profitable. In their IPO they literally claim to not be profitable and that they don’t ensure they’ll be profitable “in the future”. Not the near future, just the future as a whole.
So they were claiming to have been net profitable on certain things in q2, which again, more to the point, is them trying to shine a turd and make it look like they’ve got a future.
I get your point but their argument is basically moving the goalpost. The important thing is if the company is net profitable, and they’re not.
I heard, big part of those losses are the debts paid in stock, so when their stock rises the debts rise and the difference is written up as losses.
Not an economist though, so I might be completely wrong