欺骗投资人8年，这家AI独角兽破产了

Core Viewpoint - The rise and fall of Builder.ai exemplifies how the narrative-driven investment culture can overshadow the truth, leading to significant financial losses and the eventual collapse of companies that lack genuine technological innovation [2][3][16]. Company Overview - Builder.ai was founded in 2016 by Sachin Dev Duggal, an engineer with a background from Imperial College London, and aimed to create an AI platform for low-code application development [5][6]. - The company initially marketed itself as a revolutionary AI-driven solution, claiming to automate code generation through a user-friendly interface [6][7]. Investment Journey - Builder.ai attracted significant investment, including a $29.5 million Series A round led by SoftBank in 2018, and a $195 million Series B round in 2022, which inflated its valuation to $1.6 billion by 2023 [7][8]. - The company falsely claimed partnerships with major firms like Nvidia and Microsoft to enhance its credibility and attract further investment [7][11]. Financial Misconduct - In March 2024, an internal audit revealed that Builder.ai had inflated its 2023 revenue by 20%-25%, leading to a drastic reduction in its 2024 revenue forecast from $220 million to $55 million [9][10]. - Following the resignation of Duggal due to financial fraud allegations, the company faced severe cash flow issues, culminating in its bankruptcy declaration in May 2025 [9][10]. Operational Issues - Builder.ai's operational model relied heavily on manual labor rather than genuine AI capabilities, with many tasks performed by low-cost engineers in India, contradicting its marketed image [11][12]. - The company reported a revenue of $210 million in 2023 but incurred a loss of $430 million, highlighting a flawed cost structure [11]. Regulatory and Market Implications - The case of Builder.ai reflects broader issues within the AI investment landscape, where a lack of regulatory oversight and the allure of narrative-driven investments can lead to significant market distortions [15][16]. - The incident serves as a cautionary tale about the risks associated with investing in companies that prioritize storytelling over substantive technological advancements [15][16].