Trade Dollars with other startups. Book it as revenue

https://www.revswap.ai/

by tormeh • 2 months ago

182 164 2 months ago

"This is a parody website. Any resemblance to real companies wash-trading their revenue is purely coincidental and also definitely happening."

hliyan• 2 months ago

The best bit of tongue-in-cheek is in the FAQ:

We take 2% of every swap. Then we swap our revenue with another platform.

randometc• 2 months ago

Obligatory Michael Lewis quote, from Boomerang (2011):

Yet another hedge fund manager explained Icelandic banking to me this way: you have a dog, and I have a cat. We agree that each is worth a billion dollars. You sell me the dog for a billion, and I sell you the cat for a billion. Now we are no longer pet owners but Icelandic banks, with a billion dollars in new assets.

cucumber3732842• 2 months ago

That's just a variant of this old one:

Two economists are walking through a cow pasture.

The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."

"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"

lesuorac• 2 months ago

Well while the pile of shit makes it a joke, isn't there a real advantage here of legibility?

Like you have a measure (GDP) and it can't accurate measure things unless a sale occurs. So even if the money is a wash there was an actual activity occurring in the economy and now it's recorded.

jerf• 2 months ago

Except the GP quote actually happens.

For example, if you've ever wondered why useless art trades at such eye-watering valuations, the answer is that the high valuations are fictions that governments will accept for tax purposes, from which you can derive a variety of exciting tax consequences: https://naturalist.gallery/blogs/journal/understanding-the-f... more-or-less because they agree among themselves what the art is valuated at for their own benefit.

lotsofpulp2• 2 months ago

That scenario does not work for this discussion because the first economist has no reason to expect the second economist will ask him to eat shit for $100.

thelastgallon• 2 months ago

I like this bit:

Read the whitepaper*

*there is no whitepaper

Lucasoato• 2 months ago

Some of the text can't be read if opened in Firefox with dark mode as default. Kudos to you guys for making it anyway!

jwr• 2 months ago

I find this amusing: I'm from Poland, where after the VAT tax was introduced in the 1990s, there were famous "VAT carousel" crimes, with people ending up in prison. The basic idea was similar, except you also collected VAT refunds from the state.

If you search for "vat carousel" today, it seems this is still a thing.

debarshri2• 2 months ago

VAT carousel is fraud. This is pre-legal.

gaiagraphia• 2 months ago

VAT is a joke of a tax. It's quite incredible why the government concerns itself with chasing people's accounts around. What a waste.

If something can't be monitored with minimal effort, it only serves to enrich the legal/accountancy/hr/admin priest caste.

The amount of labour wasted on moving numbers around numbers is staggering.

edit: Between the government and businesses, VAT costs 5% in admin fees to raise. In a modern world where most transactions are digital, is this a great use of resources?

ww520• 2 months ago

VAT is a regressive tax. It hits everyone along the way, rich or poor. It hits the poor especially hard proportionally.

whynotmaybe• 2 months ago

Source for the "5%"?

derriz2• 2 months ago

VAT is trivial for businesses to deal with. You add x% onto every invoice you issue. The VAT due to be paid to the government is a simple sum of the amounts distinctly shown on each invoice you issue minus the sum of the VAT amounts on invoices you’ve paid. Income/employment taxes, corporate tax, import taxes, etc are orders of magnitudes more complex, dynamic and subject to legal interpretation. I was a small business owner for a while years ago and did the VAT myself. But there was no way I would even attempt employment or corporation taxes - covered by endless legislation and changing every year - that was a job for the accountant.

stephen_cagle4• 2 months ago

I've multiple times done a minor dive into why a VAT tax is seen as a reasonable tax? It... seems as regressive as a sales tax with even more layers of intervention? I've always eventually lost interest in trying to make sense of it, but they sure seem popular in Europe so there must be something to them?

My current belief is that there should really just be a wealth tax on assets (Federal) and a land value tax on land (States); nothing else.

econ• 2 months ago

I first hear about this from a guy running a warehouse. He noticed the same boxes commining in again and again.

testing22321• 2 months ago

I pay you a million dollars to eat dog shit. You pay me a million dollars to eat dog shit.

The result? The GDP goes up two million and we both have shit eating grins.

wordpad• 2 months ago

It's a bad example, because both sides actually got the entertainment they paid for and is totally valid economic activity.

Havoc• 2 months ago

The FAQ is amazing....pre-legal haha

This is why substance over form is a thing in revenue accounting. Unless you're an American AI company ofc.

baggachipz• 2 months ago

Is there a way we can leverage the Gig Economy to book large gains?

debarshri2• 2 months ago

What are the types of ARR the platform support?

Can it also generate SOC2 certifications in days?

random3• 2 months ago

They gotta become a platform, so likely more will come

janderson215• 2 months ago

I heard they started a hardware unit operating in stealth, but the rumor is they’re working on a box.

grey-area2• 2 months ago

Activities like this are a good sign of a bubble close to bursting. The circular deals Nvidia and OpenAI have done are good examples of this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals

FergusArgyll• 2 months ago

It's a joke

grey-area2• 2 months ago

It’s a funny joke because it is truly happening (without the fraud as a service middleman). This sort of trade has been rampant the last few years in the AI and GPU space, as you can see from the link above, which details people doing exactly this in the real world with armies of accountants to make it appear legal.

spwa4• 2 months ago

Isn't this highly illegal, and worst of all: this is cheating taxes ...

Let's just say if you really want to commit crimes, don't start with challenging the IRS. Just don't. There's so many horror stories about that.

HumblyTossed• 2 months ago

As the FAQ suggests, it's "pre-legal".

But it's all for mocking the current market... so.

luke5441• 2 months ago

Let no one have the excuse of "this was so unexpected" once it burns down.

Frozen_Flame• 2 months ago

What if instead of trading dollars I want to promise to trade dollars in the future? My investors need to see me capturing the market. Might even create some panic for added fun.

conorcleary• 2 months ago

You'll be the mayor of Foursquare in no time!

everfrustrated• 2 months ago

AKA YC companies buying from each other.

stego-tech• 2 months ago

I don’t see anything topping the internet today better than this. Perfect, no notes.

rizza• 2 months ago

This took me far too long to figure out that it was parody. I'm sure some VC has at least thought of building a SEC Violations as a Service platform. This is truly the dumbest timeline.

alansaber• 2 months ago

Reinventing tax litigation from first principles

whatever12• 2 months ago

It’s down already. The fund exceeded its capacity.

Swizec• 2 months ago

Services in kind is a pretty common business practice. You see this a lot at the SMB level especially outside of the US.

Small businesses are cash strapped. So you find someone who needs your services and you need their services. Instead of exchanging cash, you exchange invoices and do the work. You build them, say, a $5000 website, they perform, say, $5000 of landscaping.

At big boy levels this is often structured as “strategic partnership”.

The part that makes it not fraud is that both parties do actually do the work.

skeeter20202• 2 months ago

the last thing you should do in this scenario is book that as revenue. Of course I would never do this, but you could keep it off the books.

ebiester• 2 months ago

It depends if your goal is to sell the company or evade taxes, of course.

atomicnumber3• 2 months ago

This feels very adjacent to the story about the whole town in debt, and the rich guy leaves a $100 bill on the table, [and so on], in a way that I can't quite put my finger on.

throwaway6675552• 2 months ago

You can't put your finger on it because money is merely an accumulator and medium of exchange of economic performance. The performance of services in exchange for other services without money is a perfectly valid economic exchange that can and should be booked to revenue of each of the parties, if actually performed.

Loans without any economic performance of services generate circular meaningless cash flows yeah, but that's not the case when services are actually performed.

Loans are promises to pay. Business deals are promises to perform services or deliver goods. The difference is easily lost in the details even for accountants and economists.

adharmad• 2 months ago

The man who saved Pumplesdrop By W. J. Turner

joenot443• 2 months ago

It's a cool little analogy, one I'd never heard of before

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_answer_to_a.html

True, at the beginning each resident has a $100 liability. But each also has an offsetting financial asset of $100. At the end, they all have neither. So the $100 bill acts as a clearing mechanism

Aurornis• 2 months ago

The key realization is that it increases expenses at an equal rate as the revenue increase.

You get $5000 of revenue but spent $5000 on services.

You also have to pay taxes on that $5000 like other revenue.

So many small businesses will try to just exchange the services more directly in some way, or give steep discounts. (Tip: This doesn’t mean it’s entirely correct for tax/legal/accounting purposes, so don’t do big deals like this without consulting professionals. I’m just saying this is what’s done by some people)

The part that makes it not fraud is that both parties do actually do the work.

The cheap criticisms of these deals always miss this part: something of value is traded for the dollars by both parties. Companies can’t simply circulate dollars between themselves.

ahtihn• 2 months ago

You also have to pay taxes on that $5000 like other revenue.

Businesses do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

Other taxes may be applicable though (such as VAT or sales taxes).

lelanthran• 2 months ago

You also have to pay taxes on that $5000 like other revenue.

What taxes are owed on revenue? Tou pay taxes on profit only.

bryanlarsen4• 2 months ago

The part that makes it not fraud is that both parties do actually do the work.

It's far more nuanced than that.

If you do the work but undervalue it, it's likely tax fraud.

If you do the work but overvalue it, it's likely investor fraud.

Even if you fairly value the work it still might be investor fraud. The vendor may have been chosen not by merit, but by its willingness to accept an exchange of services. Saying you have $X in revenue implies you won that revenue by merit.

scarby22• 2 months ago

This isn't a good take.

If you do the work but undervalue it, it's likely tax fraud.

A company can value it's services as it chooses. If the work is performed for $1 or $5000 the government doesn't get a say in that.

you do the work but overvalue it, it's likely investor fraud.

Quite possibly. Assuming this was done with the intention of misrepresenting your revenue and gaining investment.

The vendor may have been chosen not by merit, but by its willingness to accept an exchange of services. Saying you have $X in revenue implies you won that revenue by merit.

Vendors are chosen all the time because of their willingness to accept specific payment terms and a whole bunch of non-merit pipelines via family, via golf course deals etc.

mannanj• 2 months ago

And who chooses how to value unique, innovative and visionary work?

brandensilva• 2 months ago

If that is fraud then company evaluations are fraud too. Case in point SpaceX and it's smorgasbord of other companies rolled into it to save them.

Who protects the consumer when they have been gutted of any power?

andix4• 2 months ago

If you do the work but undervalue it, it's likely tax fraud

Probably not, it's just giving a discount. Nothing wrong with that. Many companies sell goods or services below cost. To gain other benefits like market share, or new customers. Why not do it to get something else essential from another company?

If you do the work but overvalue it, it's likely investor fraud

It probably depends on the situation. If it's mainly used to inflate sales figures and scam investors, then probably yes. If it's just a "good deal" then probably not.

c7b• 2 months ago

Re taxes: Barter exchanges are considered taxable revenue by the IRS and must be reported on a 1099-B form. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter

Re investors: please list at least one credible source supporting this assertion.

DANmode2• 2 months ago

The vendor may have been chosen not by merit, but by its willingness to accept an exchange of services.

If a firm can’t afford services cash, that’s part of the merit of the choice.

This is not compelling.

emsign• 2 months ago

The part that makes it not
fraud is that both parties
do actually do the work.

Do they though?

Fordec• 2 months ago

Doesn't feel very far off from the money circularly trading hands between Nvidia, Oracle, OpenAI etc.

jona-f• 2 months ago

Yeah, just a few hundred billion dollars, basically the same...

kjkjadksj• 2 months ago

How do employees get paid here?

oliver236• 2 months ago

and you dont need to pay taxes? how does that work

f6v• 2 months ago

You net zero if you pay $1 and make $1.

xp84• 2 months ago

Of course you have to pay taxes!

osullip2• 2 months ago

In Australia these kind of deals are treated like income.

https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-exci...

I am sure people avoid the tax element this way, but it's not a sustainable way to go.

Let's say I do a website for $5,000 (putting aside that this a dead industry, and my career for the past 20 years) and the landscaper comes to do the work at my house.

If he cuts a powerline, falls down a hole or chops off his hand, we have a big insurance problem. No paperwork, no contract.

I have had friends who did their side of the contra deal and never got the other part of the bargain fulfilled.

Things like 'I'll paint your house if you can help fix up this old car of mine.'

I have turned down these deals in the past. Same as someone asking me to work for free for 'exposure'.

I am not having a go at the comment above as I think the point is valid - small business doing this is fraud, big business do it and it's fine.

Just my advice to anyone thinking it might work for them. Send the invoice, do the work, get paid in money.

RobotToaster5• 2 months ago

I think the fact that it's treated as income is the point.

My company builds your company a website, and "charge" $1,000,000 for it.

Your company mows my company's lawn and "charge" $1,000,000 for it.

Both companies now have $1,000,000 in revenue from this transaction.

singleshot_3• 2 months ago

No paperwork, no contract.

Two adults, a legal subject, sufficiently specified, offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent… a contract.

TZubiri• 2 months ago

And the part that would make it fraud (in some contexts, especially publicly traded and international corp struturing for tax purposes) would be overvaluing the services.

glitchc• 2 months ago

Tax laws may vary by jurisdiction. Often the in-kind contributions appear on a different line item from income on the balance sheet and usually go into a different box on the tax form.

BobbyTables2• 2 months ago

Wouldn’t they still pay taxes on the trade?

Yeah, they’re getting useful things but they aren’t making money.

sscaryterry• 2 months ago

(Pending) Crime-as-a-Service

RobotToaster5• 2 months ago

Anyone else getting "SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP"

1attice• 2 months ago

Yes. :/ GrapheneOS over here

RobotToaster5• 2 months ago

I'm on firefox on windows.

0xffany• 2 months ago

Visiting the website's url (revswap.ai without www) redirects me to revai.com which is for sale on godaddy... Fastest enshittification ever?

RobotToaster5• 2 months ago

Maybe the IRS didn't get like the joke?

Kim_Bruning• 2 months ago

Confirmed. Firefox and Chrome.

cactusplant7374• 2 months ago

Has anyone here actually viewed the page? Seems strange that it got upvoted if no one can view the page.

clearstack• 2 months ago

SEC calls this round-tripping. ASC 606 requires commercial substance — if both parties just book offsetting transactions, auditors flag the net cash flow as zero

whatever12• 2 months ago

offsetting in what horizon? I give you 100 in q4 2026 you give me 100 in q1 2027

skeeter20202• 2 months ago

They're already ahead of you; you have to consistently book revenue (accrual or cash basis) which means they both go at the same time (which would offset) or that real money is being exchanged. You can't accrue the 100 you're (supposedly) giving me now and THEN accrue the 100 I'm giving you next year.

RobotToaster5• 2 months ago

What if they buy each other's NFTs instead?

felipellrocha• 2 months ago

This can’t be legal, can it?

LNSY• 2 months ago

It's legal if you get invited to Epstein parties, illegal for everyone else

12_throw_away• 2 months ago

Wait wait wait. Jeff Epstein? The New York financier?

david927• 2 months ago

I remember in the couple years before the dot com crash in 2000, there was a lot of satire being written which was being taken very seriously. You couldn't tell what was serious and what was humor because both were absurd.

desireco42• 2 months ago

Domain is down?

zoba• 2 months ago

Reminds me a bit of the NFT parody site https://nfd.miami

titanomachy• 2 months ago

Thank god, it's satire

https://web.archive.org/web/20260515043739/https://www.revsw...

fancyfredbot• 2 months ago

"This is a parody website. Any resemblance to real companies wash-trading their revenue is purely coincidental and also definitely happening."

outside12343• 2 months ago

"Any comparison to OpenAI is totally valid"

frangonf• 2 months ago

orthecreedence• 2 months ago

"Closed a $40M Series B in 11 days. Have not spoken to a customer since 2022."

That gave me a chuckle. Too real.

theartfuldodger• 2 months ago

Never seen that particular SSL error before!

PeterStuer• 2 months ago

It's weird to keep referring to these AI behemoths as "startups".

outside12343• 2 months ago

They have no scalable business model that yields profit outside of raising more investment, so yes, somehow they are still startups

mcmcmc• 2 months ago

They have no scalable business model that yields profit outside of raising more investment

Yeah that doesn’t sound Ponzi-adjacent at all

marcosdumay• 2 months ago

A startup is a small, agile company that is trying to grow.

Those things have more money than the world, and can't change anything about their business without the house of cards of their investment image falling down.

cog-flex• 2 months ago

If you doubted that we are in a bubble…

nottorp• 2 months ago

Interesting. It's probably a parody website as the comments say.

But wtf is up with Firefox? It doesn't like the site's SSL. Okay, they missed points 7, 18 and 24 to 31 in the current security theater checklist.

An error occurred during a connection to revswap.ai. Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).

Error code: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP

Whatever?

Hmm if i edit the link to http i get a cloudflare error page. Someone censoring?

And what does it say about the modern internet that the first two things i thought of are security theater and vendor censorship?

felooboolooomba• 2 months ago

Wouldn't "cookthebooks.ai" be a better name?

time0ut• 2 months ago

Pre-legal. That is gold.

pduggishetti• 2 months ago

Do it among a group of companies to make it more legal, yc way

frankfrank13• 2 months ago

I interviewed at a startup, really early stage, who claimed to be on track for $100k ARR. We all know "ARR" is bullshit, but I didn't suspect the ~$10k monthly to be bullshit. It turns out this was $10k pre-discount, and this product was ~FREE for YC companies, who made up ~100% of this companies customer base. So revenue was $0, or very close to it.

tonymet• 2 months ago

FAAS fraud as a service.

OutOfHere• 2 months ago

Don't do this unless you like eating prison food and performing slave labor for having conducted investor fraud.

Trade Dollars with other startups. Book it as revenue

Related Stories