Which tech company would you invest in because you believe in its profitable future?
Of course, before making any such decision, you’d need to research a lot of factors, such as the political environment, who runs the company (CEO, CFO, etc.), its past track record, competition in the industry, and so on.
Lately, many tech giants have been moving toward IPOs (because they need funding more than we do), which made me wonder: which companies do you think have real long-term potential on the market and are actually worth investing in?
From what I know, companies like Anthropic, SpaceX, OpenAI, and others are heading in that direction.
Where would you consider investing, and how do you see their future prospects?
185 views
Replies
Most of this thread has landed on infrastructure and workflow ownership, which I agree with, so let me add the boring lens I actually use as a data person rather than another name.
Separate revenue from durable revenue. A lot of headline AI revenue right now is gross margin negative once you subtract inference cost, so the company is effectively reselling compute below what it pays for it. That flatters the top line and tells you almost nothing about the future. The numbers I would want are gross margin after inference, and net revenue retention, because retention is the only thing that proves the workflow lock in everyone here is describing actually exists rather than being asserted.
Second, on the named names, Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX are private, so for most people this is not a stock decision at all, it is exposure through a proxy like Microsoft, Nvidia or TSMC. The proxy carries its own risks that have nothing to do with whether the lab succeeds.
Not advice, just where I would point the analysis before the brand. Read the margin, not the headline.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@oshylabs According to many sources, AI is too pricy and many companies are not catching up with creating sustainable revenue, they rather burn VC money in most cases. So it is... a huge risk here.
Anthropic, for an unglamorous reason: I pay them more every month and it still feels underpriced. Claude Code writes most of my product now, so my bet is less about benchmark charts and more about the boring moat of tools people quietly cannot work without anymore. That would be my filter for any of these IPOs: are the heaviest users raising their own spend voluntarily, without a sales team pushing them? That is the most honest revenue forecast there is.
I've got some pretty strong contenders
- Anthropic
- Nvidia
- But Google is at the top coz they never give up.
Nika, I would push back gently on the framing that pricey plus VC burn equals risk. Burn on its own is neutral. What matters is what the burn buys, and there are two kinds. One builds a moat: as it scales, gross margin after inference improves and net revenue retention climbs, so each cohort is worth more over time. The other just rents growth: spend holds market share while margins stay flat or negative and retention does not move. Same cash out, opposite meaning.
Amazon burned for years and was called reckless, but unit economics and retention improved the whole way, so the burn was really an investment. A lot of the AI names today burn with flat retention, and that is the actual danger you are pointing at, not the price tag itself. So I would not screen out the expensive ones, I would screen out the ones whose margins and retention are not improving with scale, expensive or not. Still not advice, just the order I would read the numbers in.