This is a linear regression relying on a couple years of data to predict 15 years in the future and I don't believe that the valuation is made on this basis.

It may be that spaceX is buying an operation that would realistically take 5 months and 100 million to copy in-house for 60B because the worry is that waiting 5 months might cost that much in some sort of lost opportunity. It also might be that in any negotiation SpaceX is viewed as incredibly cash-rich and so anything can be sold to them for inflated prices.

I really don't understand these companies valuations it seems like boardrooms everywhere are in a constant state of panic that they'll lose it all if they aren't growing a breakneck pace constantly.

> Cursor has $4 billion annual revenue rate so $60b is 15 years of future cashflows.

This assumes that Cursor's annual revenue will be the same or higher for over a decade. It's not really like they don't have competitors

Not annual, annualized. Let's see if people stick to it knowing it belongs to Musk now.

That revenue number is almost meaningless, since they give out tokens at a loss. Especially with Composer 2.5 tokens are sold at a steep loss. They could certainly grow to $8 billion/year, with this negative revenue / heavily subsidized subs, but what will happen if Cursor decide to be profitable, or maybe to even just break even?

If past predicts the future people will drop it once it is in Musks hands. And as a token reseller that revenue is not that impressive.

Is that profits or revenue? :-)

Hasn't cursor's revenue declined? I think they already peaked.

revenue ≠ future cashflows