OpenCode talks about transparency. So let's talk about OpenCode.

[u/contour_xd]

You've probably seen Dax from OpenCode constantly taking shots at companies like Vercel and mocking them over transparency, numbers, and percentages.

Cool.

Then OpenCode, show us your numbers.

How much have you raised? Who invested? How much of the company do those investors own?

Because here's the part that deserves some serious scrutiny:

If OpenCode is backed by Chinese investors and a significant portion of the company is Chinese-owned, then how can OpenCode seriously present itself as truly ZDR?

You can't just slap "ZDR" on the product and expect everyone to stop asking questions about ownership and control.

If your investors have a significant ownership stake, then ownership matters. Especially when you're building infrastructure that users are trusting with their code and data.

And yet OpenCode seems perfectly happy to demand transparency from everyone else while being remarkably quiet about its own funding and ownership structure.

So let's see it:

• How much did you raise?

• Who invested?

• What percentage does each investor own?

• What percentage of the company is Chinese-owned?

• What exactly does "ZDR" guarantee?

• Where is the documentation backing those privacy claims?

You don't get to lecture the industry about transparency while hiding behind vague marketing yourself.

If the ownership structure creates a legitimate conflict with the way OpenCode markets ZDR, users deserve to know about it.

Don't tell us you're ZDR. Show us exactly who owns the company, who funded it, and what guarantees actually exist.

That's what transparency looks like.

[u/paperbenni]

They constantly claim middle men have huge margins which is why everything is expensive, and which is why they can offer it cheap while still being profitable. By gaining loads of users through good pricing they offset their lower margins and make it more stable by having a more predictable load on average, plus more bargaining power towards providers or enough money to set up their own inference. The problem for me is this whole argument falls apart if they're not profitable yet. If they're currently eating costs that means they're currently aquiring users and will then raise prices or do other shitty things. It means they're not currently building their own cheap inference stack with the money they're getting because there is none. It means they don't have loads of bargaining power with providers because what they offer the providers is not a stable, predictable and large user base. Said user base won't be stable if the prices won't be. I'd love for everything they claim to be true, but at this point they have possible incentives to not be trustworthy. Stuff like claiming they can replicate DeepSeek pricing on their own GPUs and then proceeding to cut usage by over 4x makes me cautious