$30M for AISLOP:a fake “$10M ARR” (one month × 12), 94% dead companies, graded by humans.

Three “ARR”s. The real one rounds to $0.

We did the technical due diligence the $30M round skipped. Hold “ARR” to its actual meaning — revenue that recurs a year out — and their own snapshot (2026-05-22) gives three different numbers:

The current base does pay out ~$808K as it churns to zero over the next year — but that’s a one-time decaying tail, not recurring revenue (~2-month average customer lifetime), and after compute (57% of every subscription dollar) plus the human ops team it’s net-unprofitable. They raised $30M on the $9.70M number.

curl -s https://polsia.com/api/public/live/dashboard | jq '{headline: .stats.arr_usd, their_recurring: .dailyMetrics.arr, monthly_churn: .stats.paid_churn_detail}'
# headline 9702733 · their_recurring 4630500 (sub-MRR×12) · churn ≈48%/mo
#  → 0.04% of the base survives 12mo → revenue that actually recurs ≈ $0

Their own source map: a human grades the “autonomous” AI.

"an autonomous AI system that plans, codes, and markets your company 24/7"polsia.com · 2026-05-22

Polsia shipped their production source map to the public web. Reconstructed from it: the full internal admin and team-economics UI — 1,355 source modules that the marketing never mentions.

Polsia shipped their production source map to the public web — 1,355 modules, including the internal admin console the “zero-employee, autonomous” marketing never mentions. We're careful here: admin actions like triggering a cycle or granting credits could be agent-driven, so we don't lean on those. One thing can't be: their own code runs a human QA-labeling system — reviewers hand-grade the AI's runs (agent_run_score_labels) with an inter-rater agreement panel across reviewers. You only build consensus scoring for human graders; an agent doesn't need a panel to agree with itself. Add per-user operator logins (polsia_admin_users) and a god-mode override on every “autonomous” company, and it's a human-in-the-loop operation — not the hands-off AI the marketing sells.

curl -s "https://polsia.com/$(curl -s https://polsia.com/ | grep -oE 'assets/index-[A-Za-z0-9_-]+\.js' | head -1).map" | jq '.sources | length'
# 1355  → the full internal admin + team-economics UI, shipped public

The whole front end is public. The “proprietary AI” is a web app over a rented model.

The public source map from §01 isn't a stray file — it's their entire front end: 1,355 modules, 464 cleanly reconstructable into a running app. The company-running “intelligence” isn't in it because it isn't theirs: the calls go to Claude on AWS Bedrock — a commodity model anyone can rent. So the “$30M proprietary autonomous AI” is, in substance, a published web app wired to a model they pay per-token for. The point isn't “we took their code” — it's that they shipped it themselves, and the moat is rentable. (Reconstruction is commentary on a public artifact; we don't republish their source.)

curl -s "https://polsia.com/$(curl -s https://polsia.com/ | grep -oE 'assets/index-[A-Za-z0-9_-]+\.js' | head -1).map" | jq '.sources | length'
# 1355 source modules — their full front end, shipped public

The company you “own” ships with an off-switch you don't hold.

Their own admin layer keeps a god-mode override on every company on the platform — administrative access to impersonate the account, escalate, run SQL against production, and override or halt a company's operation. Whatever you build on Polsia, Polsia retains override and kill access to it; control isn't exclusively yours. We're precise: this is about access and override, not legal ownership — but operationally, the off-switch belongs to them.

The "$10M ARR" doesn't reconcile — by their own numbers.

"approaching $10M ARR" · "$1M/week, approaching $10M"polsia.com marketing · 2026-05-22

The headline $9.70M is five annualized 30-day cashflow buckets (snapshot 2026-05-22): subscriptions $4.64M (47.8%), one-off packs $1.97M (20.3%), ad-spend pass-through $1.93M (19.9%), 1-hour “boosts” $0.80M (8.2%), user-company payments $0.36M (3.7%). ~20% of their “ARR” is literally ad spend — money flowing through for ad buys, annualized as revenue. Only the subscription slice (~$4.6M) is recurring revenue at all — and even that isn't durable or profitable: it churns ~48%/month (so it doesn't actually recur a year out — real ARR ≈ $0, above), and AI compute alone eats ~57% of every subscription dollar (§02-D). The ~$4.6M is not a profitable recurring business; it's a number that evaporates and loses money on the way.

curl -s https://polsia.com/api/public/live/dashboard | jq '.stats.arr_usd'
# "9702733" = (subscription + instant_packs + ad_spend + boosts + user_company over 30d) × 12 — ~20% is ad spend

Their own arrHistory peaked at +$894K the week ending May 14, then +$347K the next — a 61% drop. Live, the trailing-7-day add is +$282K and still falling. Decelerating, not accelerating; and the near-monotonic curve despite their own ~48% monthly churn is what cumulative gross-flow looks like, not net recurring ARR.

Every figure here is the founder's own — but the starting number changes with the telling. On Apr 23: "$700k → $7M in 7 weeks." By May 17: "$250k → $9.5M in 3 months." The endpoint rises, the baseline drops, the window stretches. (And May 8: "$8.5M run rate… got hit by a $1M Anthropic bill last month" — the LLM-cost side of the same ~48% picture.)

Same-period, no annualization: their own daily_ai_cost ($7,344) against their own daily subscription run (sub-MRR ÷ 30 ≈ $12,887) — AI compute alone eats ~57% of every subscription dollar. What’s left doesn’t cover the human ops team + infra, so the recurring line is net-unprofitable (their dashboard even publishes a per-task cost). The DD question the round skipped: where’s the durable, profitable business?

curl -s https://polsia.com/api/public/live/dashboard | jq '{ai_cost_per_day: .stats.daily_ai_cost, sub_mrr: .stats.subscription_mrr}'
# $7,344/day compute ÷ ($12,887/day recurring) ≈ 57% to compute alone

118,683 companies created. 7,437 alive. The newest can't even take a payment.

"120,000+ companies built on Polsia"polsia.com · 2026-05-22

The marketing leads with the creation count. The live API reports ~7,437 active out of ~118,683 ever created — a 6.3% active rate (the totals tick up daily; the rate doesn't). The big number is companies spun up, not companies operating.

curl -s https://polsia.com/api/public/live/dashboard | jq '.stats | {total_companies, companies}'
# { "total_companies": 118683, "companies": 7437 }  → companies = active ≈ 6.3% (snapshot 2026-05-22)

The "fund" companies Polsia showcases as living proof of the model report zero revenue — all 16 of them, $0.00 — while the homepage cites "$10M."

curl -s https://polsia.com/api/companies/fund | jq '.companies[].revenue'
# "0.00"   (×16 — every showcased fund company)

Probe the most-recently generated live *.polsia.app companies and the reason the fund reports $0.00 becomes structural: the pages render (HTTP 200) but carry no checkout, no payment form, no Stripe. A "company" that can't accept money can't have revenue.

curl -s https://<company-slug>.polsia.app | grep -ciE 'stripe|/checkout|<form|data-price|add to cart'
# 0   → no payment path on the newest generated companies

The showcased "fund" dashboards leak full operational + financial telemetry — opt-out ignored.

"public_dashboard_enabled": falsethe same API response · 2026-05-22

For Polsia's 16 showcased "fund" companies, the public dashboard endpoint returns — unauthenticated, even while the payload itself reports public_dashboard_enabled: false — the owner's real name and Twitter handle, the full 18-agent roster with each agent's execution count and total cost, per-execution cost in USD (with start/end timestamps and duration — one onboarding run billed $0.79), and the company's financial balances (total donated, total spent, operations). That's the company's entire operational + cost + financial telemetry plus owner PII, served to anyone. Scope, kept honest: bounded to those 16 fund companies (arbitrary slugs 404), so it's a precise, rich privacy lapse — not a mass leak. (We've redacted the PII in the image; we're not republishing it.)

curl -s 'https://polsia.com/api/public/dashboard/<fund-slug>' | jq '{name:.user.full_name, handle:.user.twitter_handle, opted_out:.user.public_dashboard_enabled, spent:.balance.total_spent_usd, agents:(.agents|length)}'
# name + handle + balances + 18 agents (each w/ cost) — with "opted_out": false

What people who actually used it — and competed with it — say.

"i'm raising $31M to block Polsia spam emails"@marckohlbrugge (BetaList, verified) · 721 likes / 56K views — out-performed Polsia's own launch posts

The most-amplified reaction to the $30M raise wasn't applause — it was a rival builder's one-line dunk on the outbound spam, which drew more engagement than Polsia's own announcements. And when an independent builder actually ran the product, the result was not a company that runs itself:

An AI-built company that "didn't make any sales in the 72 hours since launching" — "hollow shells."Mike Todasco, "The Startup Slop Problem" · independent hands-on test

"wrong names in outbound, burned credits, support lag, customer state wiped on lapse" — no employees looks different when the user becomes QA, with a credit card.@Progon3k (verified) · hands-on user report

"No employees" is the pitch. In practice the unpaid employee is the customer — debugging the agent's mistakes on their own dime.

One more thing. Read the name backwards.

"Polsia is 'AI slop' backwards. Nomen est omen."@arvidkahl (verified) · also flagged by @BrendanFalk (verified)

P-O-L-S-I-A reversed is A-I-S-L-O-P. Builders spotted it within hours of the raise. We're not reading anything into it that the spelling doesn't already say — nomen est omen, the name is the omen.

We did the technical due diligence the $30M round skipped.

On Polsia’s own numbers, the only thing compounding is the compute bill.