Figure AI announced their Series C in September, pushing total committed capital over $1 billion. The post-money valuation hit $39 billion.
That's a stunning number for a company with limited production deployment. Figure has pilots with BMW and other manufacturers, but nothing approaching mass production. Most of their humanoid robots remain in carefully controlled demonstrations.
The funding shows investor belief in the humanoid thesis: bipedal robots that can work in human environments doing human tasks. The pitch is compelling. Build a general-purpose robot once, deploy it everywhere.
Reality check: Agility Robotics' Digit is further along in actual deployment (Amazon warehouses, GXO logistics) and they're shipping "hundreds" of units in 2025 from a factory capable of 10,000 robots per year. Figure's numbers suggest they're still primarily in development mode.
The $39 billion valuation implies investors expect Figure to dominate the humanoid market. That's a massive bet on unproven deployment at scale.
Design lesson: Investor enthusiasm doesn't equal product reality. Figure raised at a massive valuation based on future potential, not current deployments. Compare that to Einride's $100M round (covered earlier this week) for autonomous trucks already hauling commercial freight. Both valid strategies. Very different risk profiles.
Guardian Agriculture: When Real Products Aren't Enough
Guardian Agriculture shut down in late August 2025 after failing to secure additional funding. The Woburn, Massachusetts startup built large drones for aerial crop spraying.
This wasn't vaporware. Guardian had actual product. Real customers. Drones that worked. They conducted layoffs earlier in the summer trying to extend runway, then ceased operations entirely.
The company faced brutal competition from Chinese manufacturers, particularly DJI, which dominate US agricultural drone markets. Guardian's founder admitted the harsh reality: "Our vision was something that people were willing to pay more for. The problem was that we got to market too slowly."
They couldn't match Chinese pricing. DJI's drones, built with state subsidies, cost less than Guardian could manufacture for. Guardian advocated for restrictions on Chinese drones citing national security and unfair market dynamics. It didn't help.
The contrast with Figure AI's $1B is instructive. Figure builds humanoids that might work at scale someday. Guardian built drones that worked today but got crushed on price. Figure gets a $39B valuation. Guardian gets shut down.
What's the difference? Market size perception matters, but so does competition. Humanoids theoretically address every physical job with no dominant low-cost competitor yet. Agricultural drones face entrenched Chinese manufacturers with unbeatable economics.
Sometimes the better product loses to cheaper competition.
The Pattern
Capital flows to future potential, not present reality.
Figure raised $1 billion for humanoids that aren't deployed. Guardian shut down with drones that actually worked. The difference isn't product quality or technical achievement. It's story scale.
Investors fund big visions of general-purpose automation even when specific-purpose automation proves harder to monetize despite working today.
That doesn't make either approach wrong. But it shows where the money goes.
This is a web-only post. Subscribe to the full newsletter at [link]