Very little data about expenses, but it looks like they may be growing a little slower (3-4x a year) than revenue. Which makes sense because inference and training get more efficient over time.
We don't have evidence one way or the other. But from the public statements the idea that they lose roughly their revenue seems constant over time. It's possible that that is simply a psychological barrier for investors. Meaning they grow their losses at roughly 2x their revenue growth rate.
Growing businesses tend to consume capital. How much capital is appropriate to burn is subjective, but there are good baselines from other industries and internal business justifications. As tech companies burn capital through people time, it's hard to directly figure out what is true CapEx vs. unsustainable burn.
You wouldn't demand that a restaurant jack prices up or shutdown in its first month of business after spending ~1 MM on a remodel to earn ~20k in the first month. You would expect that the restaurant isn't going to remodel again for 5 years and the amortized cost should be ~16k/mo (or less).
I would recommend that restaurant jack up their prices if they're remodeling the restaurant every other day and have no plans on stopping or slowing down that constant remodeling.
> it's hard to directly figure out what is true CapEx vs. unsustainable burn.
Exactly, and yet you're so certain they'll achieve profitability. The cost for pickles could get cheaper but if they're constantly spending more and more on the rest of the burger and remodeling the building all the time to add yet another wing of seating that may or may not actually be needed it doesn't really matter in their overall profitability right?
Is there evidence that their revenues are growing faster than their costs?