AI Startups Gaming Revenue Metrics as VCs Turn a Blind Eye
Founders and investors are systematically inflating ARR figures by substituting contracted revenue, creating a credibility crisis in AI startup valuations.
Last verified:
The Revenue Metric Shell Game
AI startup valuations rest on a shaky foundation: inflated revenue numbers that investors and founders knowingly accept. According to TechCrunch, the culprit is a systematic substitution of contracted annual recurring revenue (CARR) for actual ARR—a sleight of hand that distorts growth signals across the industry.
Spellbook CEO Scott Stevenson triggered the conversation in April by calling the practice a “huge scam” on social media, drawing over 200 reshares and comments from VCs and founders. TechCrunch subsequently interviewed over a dozen founders, investors, and finance professionals, all of whom confirmed the pattern: fudged ARR in public statements is routine, and financial backers are aware of the exaggerations.
How the Inflation Works
ARR historically meant the annualized value of active customer contracts—money expected to arrive from customers actively using a product. CARR, by contrast, counts revenue from signed contracts where customers haven’t yet been onboarded or deployed the product. One venture capitalist told TechCrunch that he observed companies where CARR exceeded ARR by as much as 70%, despite no guarantee that signed customers would ever activate.
The distinction matters because ARR served the cloud era as a proxy for product-market fit and sustainable growth. GAAP accounting doesn’t formally audit ARR—it focuses on historical, collected revenue rather than future obligations—which creates a regulatory blind spot. Companies exploit this gap by collapsing CARR into ARR announcements, manufacturing the appearance of explosive growth.
The Collective Action Problem
The inflation persists not because it’s secret, but because it’s contagious. According to an unnamed investor quoted by TechCrunch, once a leading startup in a category begins reporting CARR as ARR, competitors face implicit pressure to follow suit or risk appearing slower-growing in fundraising pitches. This dynamic traps founders and VCs in a race to the bottom, where honesty becomes a competitive disadvantage.
Clio CEO Jack Newton acknowledged that Stevenson’s post brought overdue scrutiny to the practice. Y Combinator founder Garry Tan subsequently published guidance on proper revenue metrics, signaling that at least some institutional investors recognize the credibility crisis.
Why This Matters
The normalization of inflated metrics undermines due diligence across the AI funding ecosystem. If 70% of reported growth evaporates upon scrutiny, LP (limited partner) returns suffer, talent retention falters when promised scale fails to materialize, and acquisition targets become misvalued. For founders shopping their companies to acquirers or returning to the fundraising market, the collapse of metric credibility forces a reckoning: firms must choose between maintaining the fiction or resetting investor expectations. Those who reset first may find themselves at a disadvantage in the short term, but they also avoid the cliff edge when reality corrects the narrative.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between ARR and CARR?
ARR (annual recurring revenue) counts only money from active, onboarded customers under contract. CARR (contracted ARR) includes signed contracts from customers not yet using the product. CARR is always higher and less reliable.
Why are VCs letting this happen?
According to TechCrunch sources, once one startup in a category inflates CARR as ARR, competitors feel pressure to do the same to remain competitive in fundraising—creating a collective action problem.
Is CARR reporting illegal?
No, but it's misleading. GAAP accounting doesn't formally audit ARR (it focuses on historical revenue), so companies exploit the gap between ARR's intention and how it's used in marketing.