Why should they?

Well, we still live in a society in which one must labor in exchange for food, shelter, and medicine. The opportunities for labor keep shrinking, meanwhile money is funneled into an ever-smaller pool of people.

Post-Money = Pre-Money + Investment

So pre-money in this case is their valuation even before they've received any investment.

Yeah I feel the same way. Wonder when/if we'll get continual learning from these models. I feel like they are smart enough already but their lack of real memory makes them a pain to deal with.

Google Gemini does this sort of thing. External to the model k presume. And it's very annoying.

A friend told me he would like Claude to remember his personality, which is exactly what Gemini is trying to do.

A machine pretending to be human is disturbing enough. A machine pretending to understand you will spiral very far into spitting out exactly what we want to read.

Do you really think anyone is using AWS Kiro or Google Antigravity? They are not real competitors in the slightest.

Their annualized revenue run rate is on track to surpass $6 billion by the end of 2026 so it's not ridiculous for them to be valued at $60 billion at some point. Also worth noting that if they do get access to SpaceX compute, they could start pretraining their own model. Composer is good but its built on top of Kimi 2.5.

infisical is a great solution

Where does it say we recommend you work with scammy low-quality auditors? They say that they use third party audit firms that are used by other compliance companies.

This is clearly false from what I've seen. If you read the source Substack article and look through the list of auditors they have, it is impossible to trace down who the US-based CPA is that's issuing the report. These firms, for all intents and purposes, do not really exist. They use shell addresses in Wyoming and Texas that are registered agent offices, etc.

But really all you have to do is look at the reports themselves. They are so shoddily written that it's hard to believe any legitimate firm would issue them. If you Ctrl F for Clueley in this thread, you will see my comment with a sample excerpt from the assertion of management for one of their reports.

Present assurance definitely exists in the US. Outside of delve, I have seen their reports for vanta and it’s the same. it was 95% policy inspections and 5% loooked at a GRC tool.

I assume you mean this "Prescient Assurance? As detailed in this section of the post?

6.7 Misled auditor - Prescient

With this conclusion:

Looking at that report, there are clear signs that Delve either knowingly misled Prescient, or that Prescient accommodated Delve’s deficient process. Given their reputation and by the small number of Delve/Prescient reports out there, I’m assuming it is the former.

I've used Prescient in the past and found them on par with others. Policy evidence is at most about 30%. Everything else is show-don't-tell. Either live screen shares, screenshots, non-policy documentation, or evidence from a shared vendor that's integrated into the environments and security tools (like Drata).

if you go through the original Substack post it’s clear the intention is to drive to those obfuscated auditors.

We or they? Choose one

It can be inferred the use of "we" was as a quote. The bigger issue is that they did not clearly indicate that they were quoting.

They likely barely had a product when they applied to YC. It's more interesting as to why this wasn't discovered (if it is even true) when they were raising their Series A.

Well that's what I'm saying. The problem is if you went through YCombinator there's very little diligence when raising your Series A. I've seen it happen for a couple of startups that I was tangentially involved in.

Why would anyone actually care about this, as long as money is made?

It should really be made clearer in your post that that the crash was not from speaking with April, as it's a bit unclear. Cool product, good luck!