Two Sets of Books

In June of last year, Cluely co-founder Roy Lee got on a call with a TechCrunch reporter and told her his company was doing $7 million in annual recurring revenue.

It was $5.2 million.

His own PR team set up the conversation. A premeditated, camera-ready, press-kit-approved interview with one of the biggest tech publications on the planet. When Lee confessed on X in March, his explanation was a masterpiece of casual indifference: "I got a random cold call from some woman asking about numbers and told her some BS."

The reporter wasn't random. Nothing about the interview was cold. And the BS was worth $1.8 million in fabricated revenue.

You're reading this and thinking what everybody else in the founder community thought when the news broke: what an idiot. And you're right. Lying to TechCrunch, on the record, about your ARR, when your own PR person arranged the call? That's a spectacular kind of stupid.

Here's what I want you to sit with for a minute.

Roy Lee's version was louder, dumber, and more traceable than yours. The distance between what he did and what a lot of founders do every quarter is smaller than anyone wants to admit.

Wistia's new AI Video Marketing Trends report shows how marketers are using AI to handle the unglamorous work, so creative energy stays where it matters.

Marketing leaders across industries are using AI to reach broader audiences, move faster, and extend the shelf life of every video they make. The report breaks down how AI is improving speed and output quality, helping teams keep up with demand and raise the bar while they're at it.

Because when every channel needs video, you need leverage, not another meeting that could've been an email. AI clears the runway so ideas actually take off.

See how top teams are using AI to iterate, refine, and ship while keeping a human grip on taste, voice, and strategy.

Get the Free Report

I'm talking about the founder who had one great month in January and annualized it, even though February and March told a different story. The one who counts a pilot customer's verbal commitment as ARR before ink hits paper. The person who shows gross numbers to the board and net to the operating team, and tells herself both are true because technically they are.

None of that is fraud. Most of it is legal. All of it is corrosive.

I worked with a founder last year who had two versions of every financial document on his laptop. He didn't think of them that way. One was the board deck. The other was what he called "the real numbers," a Google Sheet he updated every Monday morning before anyone else was awake.

The board deck showed $2.8M ARR. It included three enterprise contracts that were signed but hadn't started generating revenue yet. It counted annual prepayments as recurring, even though two of those accounts had already signaled they weren't renewing. It presented a growth rate that was technically correct if you picked the right starting date.

The Google Sheet showed $2.1M. That was what was coming in the door, from customers who were using the product and paying for it on a schedule he could count on.

The distance between those two numbers was $700K. And it was driving every decision in the company.

He hired two engineers and a head of marketing based on the board deck number. He signed a 24-month office lease based on the board deck number. He told his co-founder they were six months from profitability, using the same figure that went in the slide.

The Google Sheet said 14 months.

When I asked him why he didn't show the board the conservative numbers, he looked at me like I'd suggested he show up to the investor meeting in his underwear. "If I showed them $2.1M, they'd think we were stalling," he said. "They'd start asking questions I don't have answers to yet." So he kept feeding them the version that bought him time and breathing room, and he kept making decisions against a number that existed only in a slide.

By the time the board figures and the operating reality collided, he had eight months of runway and a cost structure built for a company that didn't exist yet. The layoffs came in September.

Here's the part where I'm supposed to say this founder was reckless or dishonest. I could, but it would be too easy, and it would miss the point. He was under enormous pressure, and he's far from the only one.

According to Crunchbase, 60% of global venture capital and 70% of U.S. venture funding is now flowing to rounds of $100 million or more. Those are AI megarounds. That money has a destination, and it's the same 15 companies every quarter.

What remains for everyone else is shrinking. Seed and Series A founders are competing for a smaller pool with investors who have seen 200 pitch decks this month and remember maybe three. The bar for a second meeting keeps rising. The tolerance for "we're growing, but slowly" has dropped to zero.

In that environment, the temptation to round up is enormous. And it starts small. You include a contract that's signed but hasn't started. You present the pipeline as though 80% of it will close when your historical rate is 40%. You frame churn as "expected seasonal movement" instead of what it is.

Every one of those choices, in isolation, feels harmless. Each widens the gap between the story you're telling and the business you're running by a few inches. Then one morning you wake up and the spreadsheet you show your board and the model you use to make decisions are two different documents, and you can't remember when that happened.

The fabrication is the problem everyone notices first. The subtler cost is what happens to your decision-making when you start believing the performance.

When your board deck says $2.8M and your operating reality is $2.1M, you make every decision against the bigger figure. Hiring. Targets. Your next raise. The trajectory you promise your team. All of it anchored to the number in the slide instead of the cash coming through the door.

Then the operating reality catches up, because it always does, and you're forced to make cuts that shouldn't have been necessary. The team didn't fail. The forecast was fiction.

I've seen this pattern four times in the past two years, and it plays out the same way every time. Aggressive figures go into the pitch deck. Investors write checks based on them. The founder builds a cost structure to match. Then reality shows up six to nine months later wearing a different outfit, and the explanation is always the same: the market shifted, a big deal fell through, the competitive landscape changed.

Sometimes that's true. Other times, the deal fell through because it was never as solid as the deck implied, and the founder knew it six months before anyone else did. She just couldn't figure out how to say that out loud without unraveling the whole story she'd been telling.

With AdQuick, executing Out Of Home campaigns is as easy as running digital ads. Plan, deploy, and measure your real-world advertising effortlessly — so your team can scale campaigns and maximize impact without the headaches.

Visit AdQuick.com

The fix is simple to describe and painful to execute. Run one set of numbers.

Present the same metrics to your board that you use to decide whether to hire, cut, or change direction. If you wouldn't make a staffing decision based on a number, don't put it in the investor update.

Count revenue when it hits the bank. Call churn what it is, instead of repackaging it as "strategic customer transitions." Show the close rate you've achieved, not the figure you're hoping for.

Three things that help.

Track operating ARR separately from bookings. Operating ARR is what's coming in from customers who are active, paying, and retained. Bookings are signed contracts that may or may not convert to sustained income. Both matter. Only one tells you how much cash you have.

Show your board the same financial model you use internally. If you maintain two versions, you will optimize for the wrong one. The strongest founders I've worked with send their investors the exact dashboard they look at on Monday morning. No reformatting, no reframing.

Tell investors what's working and what isn't in the same sentence. "We grew 22% quarter over quarter, and our enterprise churn rate is higher than I want it to be." That sentence is more fundable than you think. The people writing checks know the difference between performed confidence and the earned kind. The ones worth raising from will respect the honesty more than a perfect slide.

Roy Lee's $1.8 million fabrication made headlines because it was brazen and he bragged about it afterward. The version that will cost you your company is the quiet one, where you adjust a number here, reframe a metric there, and build an operating plan on top of a story instead of a foundation.

The founder who runs one set of books makes harder decisions earlier. She raises on honest numbers and hires against real capacity. There's no gap to wake up to in September, because the deck and the operating reality were always the same document.

Every founder has two sets of numbers. The ones who build something that lasts are the ones who stop pretending.

That's just math. And the math doesn't care which version of it you put in the deck.