Salesforce, the cloud computing leader, has been transforming its business with AI, and at a small event in San Francisco on Tuesday, CEO Marc Benioff and his team revealed the latest outcomes of those initiatives: a refreshed version of Slack, packed with a multitude of new AI functionalities. The standout feature is a major enhancement for its AI assistant, Slackbot.

The 30 new features, set to be rolled out in the upcoming months, follow a January upgrade that granted Slackbot agent-like abilities — such as drafting emails, scheduling meetings, and filtering through your inbox for specific details.

Perhaps the highlight feature introduced on Tuesday is what the company refers to as reusable AI-skills — enabling users to establish specific tasks for Slackbot that, once configured, can be utilized across various situations and contexts. Salesforce indicates that Slackbot includes a built-in library of AI-skills, while users can also create their own customized versions.

After these skills are established, they considerably lessen the workload an employee may face. For instance, a user can activate a skill through a simple command in Slack — like “create a budget” for an upcoming event — prompting Slackbot to gather all pertinent information from the company’s Slack channels and any connected apps or data sources, producing a workable plan. The bot will then autonomously arrange a meeting to discuss the plan, inviting relevant staff based on their positions.

Slackbot now additionally acts as an MCP (Model Context Protocol) client — signifying it can integrate with and collaborate with external services and tools. Among these is Agentforce, Salesforce’s AI agent development platform introduced in 2024. Through this connection, it can “route work or prompt queries to Agentforce or any agent or app in your enterprise,” according to the company, with the agent determining the most relevant and efficient pathway for the information, without any human involvement.

As stated by Rob Seaman, Slack’s interim CEO and former chief product officer, Slackbot is now also capable of transcribing meetings and summarizing them. If a participant in a meeting drifts off, thereby missing essential details, they can simply request Slackbot to provide a summary of the meeting, including any action items assigned to them.

The assistant can also now function outside of Slack and keep track of your desktop activities — Salesforce cites “your deals, your conversations, your calendar, and your habits” as data sources it utilizes. Based on that context, the bot will offer actionable suggestions or draft follow-ups for important tasks. Seaman has noted that privacy safeguards are incorporated into this design, allowing users to modify permissions as required.

In summary: Salesforce is evidently striving to elevate Slack beyond its original function as an enterprise communication tool and position it as a more adaptable platform capable of managing a broader range of business tasks. The aim appears to be that by integrating AI extensively, Slack can evolve into an essential component of enterprise users’ key business operations.

Benioff allowed his team to present the main features on Tuesday but noted in his keynote that the five years since Salesforce acquired Slack have been an “incredible journey,” one that has resulted in “two and a half times revenue growth.” He added: “We have approximately a million businesses operating on Slack. It’s been a significant growth narrative.”

In February, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) sent inquiries to seven U.S. firms engaged in autonomous vehicle technology along with a set of questions. He particularly sought to understand how frequently these firms’ vehicles — operated by Aurora, May Mobility, Motional, Nuro, Tesla, Waymo, and Zoox — depend on feedback from remote personnel. According to the outcomes of Markey’s investigation released on Tuesday, they all declined to provide answers.

The data published by Markey’s office exemplifies the reluctance of autonomous vehicle companies to disclose specifics regarding their operational methods — even as they test this technology on public roadways.

“This report has uncovered a remarkable absence of transparency from the AV companies concerning their use of [remote assistance operators] to assist in directing their AVs. The investigation revealed a patchwork of safety protocols across the sector, with notable discrepancies in operator qualifications, response times, and international staffing, all in the absence of any federal guidelines regulating these operations,” Markey’s office stated in its report.

Markey announced on Tuesday that he is urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to examine these firms’ employment of remote assistance personnel, and that he is “developing legislation to enforce stringent regulations on AV companies’ utilization of remote operators.”

TechCrunch has contacted each company mentioned. Waymo opted not to comment. The other six did not respond immediately.

Markey initiated his investigation in February following a Senate Commerce Committee hearing focused on the future of self-driving vehicles. At that hearing, Waymo’s chief safety officer Mauricio Peña discussed how the company’s vehicles occasionally require direction from “remote assistance” staff when encountering challenging or unanticipated situations. Peña also disclosed that roughly half of Waymo’s remote assistance team is situated in the Philippines.

Over the years, autonomous vehicle companies have intermittently addressed these types of remote assistance operations. However, those discussions were often speculative, as the technology remained in its early testing stages.

Now that numerous companies have commercially introduced robotaxis or, in the case of Aurora, self-driving trucks, scrutiny of their complete operations has increased.

After the hearing, Markey dispatched letters to those seven firms seeking additional information about their remote operations. His office posed 14 questions to each company, including the frequency with which remote staff provide guidance to autonomous vehicles, the size of these teams, their locations, licensing, and the security protocols they implement.

The companies’ responses — which can be read in full here — are highly varied. None directly addressed the query about how often their remote staff assist AVs, with Waymo and May Mobility specifically stating that this constitutes “confidential business information.” Tesla did not even include this question in its reply letter. The reason remains unclear, as the company has not had a North American communications team for years.

Waymo asserted in its response that enhancements to its self-driving system have “materially reduced” the number of help requests per mile that its vehicles transmit to remote staff, but it did not provide any specifics or evidence. The company mentioned that a “vast majority of requests” sent by its robotaxis to remote assistance staff are resolved by the self-driving system “before an agent even provides a response.”

Waymo was the sole company to acknowledge the use of international remote assistance personnel. While the company asserts that it ensures these workers have local drivers’ licenses, Markey’s office noted on Tuesday that a “driver’s license in a foreign location is not a substitute for passing a U.S. driver’s license examination, as road rules will almost certainly differ by region.”

All companies except Tesla contended that they either prohibit or lack the capability for remote assistance personnel to directly operate these autonomous vehicles. In contrast, Tesla claimed that its remote assistance workers “are authorized to temporarily assume direct vehicle control as the final course of action after exhausting all other available interventions.”

Tesla stated that this can only occur if a vehicle in its pilot fleet is moving at 2 miles per hour or less, and that the remote operator is restricted to controlling the vehicle at a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour.

“This capability allows Tesla to swiftly relocate a vehicle that might be in a precarious position, thus reducing the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually retrieve the vehicle,” the company communicated to Markey’s office.

This practice has recently attracted criticism for Waymo, which faced challenging inquiries from San Francisco city officials at a hearing this month regarding its dependency on first responders for moving incapacitated robotaxis. Waymo does possess its dedicated “roadside assistance” team, distinctly separate from its remote assistance personnel, as detailed by TechCrunch recently. However, this aspect of Waymo’s operation was not a primary focus of Markey’s investigation.

Markey’s office did extract some additional information from these companies. His report details the latency observed in these remote assistance interactions (which fluctuates by company, with May Mobility citing the longest worst-case scenario at 500 milliseconds), how certain companies attempt to keep these workers from becoming fatigued, and what measures they adopt to safeguard the data they manage.

These are inquiries that autonomous vehicle companies have dealt with for years, and obtaining answers has not been straightforward. However, with numerous commercial deployments imminent, Markey’s office will certainly not be the last to demand more information.

OpenAI has finalized an agreement to secure $122 billion at a valuation of $852 billion, marking its most significant funding round to date as the firm prepares to enter public markets this year.

This round will enhance OpenAI’s financial resources as it allocates substantial funds towards AI chips, construction of data centers, and recruitment of top-tier talent.

SoftBank co-led the round with Andreessen Horowitz, D.E. Shaw Ventures, MGX, TPG, and T. Rowe Price Associates, with contributions from Amazon, Nvidia, and Microsoft.

Approximately $3 billion was sourced from individual investors through bank channels. OpenAI will also feature in various ETFs managed by ARK Invest, providing wider access to its stock and expanding its shareholder base ahead of its anticipated IPO.

OpenAI mentioned that it has increased its revolving credit facility to about $4.7 billion, backed by several leading global banks. The company indicated that the facility remains undrawn, suggesting it is enhancing its financial flexibility as it increases spending on compute and infrastructure, rather than addressing immediate liquidity requirements.

The press release regarding the funding reads more like a preliminary S-1 draft than a traditional blog post; it is rich in flywheel metaphors, delves into revenue per compute unit, and includes the kind of TAM-justifying rhetoric that captivates institutional investors.

OpenAI provided updates on its revenue and user metrics, asserting it is generating $2 billion monthly and taking aim at rivals: “Currently, we are increasing revenue at four times the rate of the companies that pioneered the Internet and mobile eras, such as Alphabet and Meta.”

The firm also reported having over 900 million weekly active users in consumer AI and more than 50 million subscribers, with search usage nearly tripling within the past year. OpenAI noted that its ads pilot is yielding over $100 million in annual recurring revenue in less than six weeks, presenting a significant potential revenue avenue for a company that established its user base without advertising.

The AI powerhouse claims that business momentum is reflected in its operations, now accounting for 40% of its revenue (up from roughly 30% last year) and is “on track to match consumer by the end of 2026.” The company attributed its growth in agentic workflows to its latest model, GPT-5.4.

In conclusion, OpenAI referred to itself as an “AI superapp,” clearly indicating its ambition to dominate the main interface through which people interact with AI.

Overall, this conveys a single message: OpenAI is actively crafting its public market story, and this funding round is as much about solidifying IPO expectations as it is about securing capital.

Pete Martin recalls securing a $5 million seed round at a $25 million post-money valuation for his AI-driven cybersecurity firm Realm back in 2024, which feels like a millennium in “AI years”.  

At that time, that valuation appeared elevated for that sum, he noted. However, presently, “it’s quite standard” to observe a $10 million seed round at a $40 million to $45 million post-money valuation, particularly for an AI enterprise, he mentioned.  

In fact, this tends to occur exclusively for AI firms, as investors are showing scant interest in any other sectors. 

During the latest Y Combinator Demo Day in March, conversations revolved around the inflated valuations of companies, stated Ashley Smith, a general partner at early-stage fund Vermilion. Numerous startups had clinched six- to seven-figure customer contracts, including one that had only been operational for eight weeks, she remarked, leading to companies requesting $5 million at a $40 million post-money valuation.

This situation surpassed the so-called “YC tax,” which illustrates how much extra investors are prepared to invest simply because the startup is a YC alumnus, she explained. Even with those early revenue figures, Smith asserted that market investors are valuing rounds “years ahead of actual traction.”

Major venture firms, buoyed with capital, are also entering rounds at earlier stages, escalating startup prices and valuations with the hope of attaining significant returns if these companies eventually go public or exit. Smaller VC firms also exhibit an unquenchable thirst for AI enterprises. As an investor concentrated on AI infrastructure, Smith noted that she frequently finds herself priced out of a round, especially when a larger firm steps in. This is one reason both founders and VCs claim seed deal volume has declined, even as valuations have soared, according to data from Carta.  

Shanea Leven, founder of the enterprise AI application platform Empromptu, points the finger at Cursor, which achieved $100 million in revenue within just 12 months in early 2025. It was one of the first prominent AI companies to raise the standard for how rapidly these startups could achieve traction, although it certainly wasn’t the sole example. Others include Lovable, Bolt, OpenEvidence, and ElevenLabs, all touting their rapid progress. Although these are exceptions, it’s challenging for some not to feel the generated excitement.  

“The expectations from investors are changing now,” she claimed. “The pressure is unprecedented, not just to become a billion-dollar entity, but a $50 billion one.”   

Accelerated traction, larger valuations 

VCs are quick to justify the rise in seed valuations. For example, Marlon Nichols, managing general partner at MaC Ventures, stated that the evidence lies in the traction evident right from the start, influencing seed pricing. When he founded his firm in 2019, he noted his average entry investment was $2.5 million. Currently, it’s $5 million.  

“The top seed-stage firms no longer resemble typical seed-stage companies,” he asserted. The evolution of AI tools enables founders to reach minimal viable products and acquire early customers more rapidly than ever, even among large enterprises that are eagerly scouting for AI deployment solutions.

Nichols’ last two seed investments were generating over $2 million in revenue, featuring “paid pilots from substantial enterprises” and “a clear pathway to full commercial agreements.” He issued checks ranging between $3 million and $4 million and agreed to value the startups at $25 million and $30 million post-money, respectively, significantly more compared to a few years ago.  

The founders’ past experiences also impacted his term-sheet offers. “They possessed relevant backgrounds” and “a history of execution,” he explained, “which mitigated much of that early-stage risk.”  

Moreover, investors are prepared to pay premium prices for proven AI talent, favoring second-time founders or those possessing credentials from recognized prior employers (such as OpenAI). This also raises anticipated valuations across the landscape.

“There’s an ongoing competition for outstanding researchers currently, and I don’t classify it as good or bad; it simply reflects the existing market conditions,” Amber Atherton, a partner at the early-stage consumer fund Patron, noted.  

That’s what is driving some of the most extreme seed valuations, like the $2 billion seed for Thinking Machine Labs at a $12 billion valuation by ex-OpenAI Mira Murati.  

Leven, who is a second-time founder, mentioned that her startup’s valuation at this stage is double that of her initial company at a comparable phase. Not only is her latest venture AI-focused, but it also has substantially more traction than her previous startup did at this point, illustrating how swiftly new businesses like hers can expand.  

“I presently hold several six-figure contracts and am about to close a seven-figure deal. You need these to secure funding,” Leven explained. “A friend of mine is attempting to raise a comparable amount, but hers is not in AI, and it took her two years to achieve half of what I secured in three weeks.”  

Pre-seed is the new seed 

Seed VCs like Vermilion’s Smith are countering increasing seed valuations by pursuing more pre-seed deals. Pre-seed startups resemble the kind of companies that seed firms used to be many years ago: extremely early and pre-revenue. 

Jonathan Lehr, a general partner at Work-Bench, is investing from a $160 million fund predominantly aimed at seed rounds, though he mentioned that the firm has become “more comfortable” participating at the pre-seed stage as companies scale much quicker.  

It’s becoming more typical to see investors inject capital into startups at earlier stages, as enhanced exposure is simply the cost of “accessing firms that can scale rapidly and emerge as category leaders,” Lehr commented. 

Meanwhile, Atherton noted that to secure a stake in these promising early-stage enterprises, the average check size for her firm’s $100 million Fund II now spans from $4 million to $5 million, up from $1 to $2 million for its $90 million Fund I.

“AI has significantly elevated the standards for founders to launch with live products and customers right away,” she stated.  “Investors must act more swiftly and assess real-world traction at an earlier stage since the best founders are delivering products with users and revenue almost immediately.”

Thus, seed VCs are no longer “backing ideas”; they are “backing early indications of genuine consumer product demand,” she articulated. Seed VCs are also accelerating their pace, shifting “from slow diligence to high-conviction judgments regarding distribution, retention, and founder characteristics.” 

But there’s a catch

As expectations have risen, so have investors’ demands.  

Atherton expressed that it’s no longer adequate for a company to merely develop and dispatch a product. Today, anyone can achieve that. It’s not solely about traction, although that is beneficial. It centers on the future, the narrative founders present about how they will outperform their competitors and dominate the market. This is what these seed VCs believe will propel startups towards sustained, $50 billion+ valuations or at least lead to some profitable exit.

“Individuals are merely striving to withstand the pressure,” Leven noted. “Otherwise, there won’t be sufficient funds to expand and genuinely compete.”  

The upside of raising significant amounts of capital at the nascent stages for a founder is that it enables the company to accelerate and recruit costly talent. VCs understand, as they formulate their term sheets, that talent during the AI era is expensive, as are the operations of the AI models supporting these startups, and contending with other well-funded adversaries, sometimes large SaaS companies already valued in the billions. 

Everyone, according to Leven, is attempting to replicate the success of Google’s acquisition of Wiz. However, the stakes are higher as well. Founders must evolve their businesses into entities that validate the elevated early valuations before seeking further funding. Series A investors are also anticipating larger, quicker, and more.  

Nichols and his firm are currently evaluating an increasing number of young companies, with new expectations that they meet their milestones within approximately 18 months. “That discipline is equally crucial as backing winners,” he stated.  

Elevated seed valuations lead to a narrower margin for mistakes, Lehr commented, adding: “Less latitude for experimentation, diminished tolerance for pivots, and heightened scrutiny if progress doesn’t align with the capital raised.”  

Martin, the cybersecurity entrepreneur, successfully completed his Series A funding late last year, mentioning that the benchmarks were manageable for his firm to meet. Yet, he too cautioned founders.

“You might find yourself trapped in the middle,” Martin warned. “Too costly for new investors, yet lacking the momentum to validate the next round.”

At times, what seems like a solid concept, a substantial investment from a prominent VC, and a host of well-connected angel investors may not suffice.

Fewer than twelve months post-launch, Yupp is shutting down, co-founders Pankaj Gupta and Gilad Mishne revealed on Tuesday.

Yupp provided a crowdsourced service for selecting AI models. It permitted users to experiment with and evaluate outcomes from a collection of 800 AI models for free, including cutting-edge options from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic. Yupp would deliver various responses to users’ prompts, providing information or images, with users giving feedback on which models were most effective and the reasons behind their choices.

The objective was to compile anonymized insights on actual consumer needs regarding AI that model developers would then purchase. Yupp claimed to have acquired 1.3 million users and gathered millions of preferences monthly. It even maintained a leaderboard. The company noted it had a few AI labs among its clients.

Unfortunately, it “didn’t achieve a sufficiently robust product-market fit” to remain viable, partly due to rapid advancements in AI models over recent months, as stated by the founders.

While labs are investing significantly for insights, the prevailing model — established by firms like Scale AI and Mercor — involves employing specialized experts, such as PhDs, to integrate into the reinforcement learning paradigm.

Moreover, Silicon Valley is already strategizing for the future, envisioning a time when AI systems are designed for, and utilized by, other AIs. Although model developers may seek consumer insights at present, they are primarily focused on the era when agents, rather than humans, dominate the digital landscape.

“The landscape of AI model capabilities has transformed significantly in just the past year and will keep evolving rapidly,” Gupta, Yupp’s CEO, stated in a post on X regarding the shutdown plans. “The future encompasses not merely models but agentic systems.”

Yupp secured a $33 million seed funding round in 2024, spearheaded by a16z crypto’s Chris Dixon, a substantial seed round for its time. Additionally, Yupp received investments from over 45 angels and small investors, it mentioned. This included notable figures such as Google DeepMind chief scientist Jeff Dean; Twitter co-founder Biz Stone; Pinterest co-founder Evan Sharp; and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas.

Gupta indicated that some of Yupp’s staff are joining a “well-known” AI company, while others are seeking new opportunities. Yupp did not promptly respond to TechCrunch’s inquiry for a statement.

Meta faced a setback in a lawsuit against the state of New Mexico last week, signifying the first occasion the enterprise has been deemed accountable by the judicial system for jeopardizing child safety. This ruling was significant in its own right — but the following day, Meta encountered another defeat when a jury in Los Angeles concluded that the corporation deliberately crafted its applications to be addictive for minors and adolescents, thereby compromising the mental health of the plaintiff, a 20-year-old identified as K.G.M.

These decisions pave the way for an influx of lawsuits regarding Meta’s deliberate targeting of teenage users, despite its awareness that its applications can adversely affect adolescents’ mental well-being. A multitude of cases akin to K.G.M.’s are in progress, while 40 state attorneys general have initiated lawsuits against Meta that resemble New Mexico’s action.

Although social media companies are generally protected by law from liability for user-generated content, this instance focused not on the material shared on these platforms but rather on the design features themselves, such as infinite scrolling and constant notifications.

“They utilized the model that was leveraged against the tobacco industry many years ago, concentrating not on the content but on these addictive attributes — how the platform is constructed, and concerns regarding the design, which differs from content, where you encounter this First Amendment debate,” said Allison Fitzpatrick, a digital media attorney and partner at Davis+Gilbert, to TechCrunch. “It appeared to be, at least in these two instances, an effective argument.”

Following a six-week trial, the jury in the New Mexico case determined Meta guilty of breaching the state’s Unfair Practices Act, mandating the firm to pay the highest penalty of $5,000 per infringement, aggregating to a $375 million fine. The Los Angeles trial, which held Meta 70% responsible and YouTube 30% accountable for the distress experienced by plaintiff K.G.M., will impose a collective fine of $6 million on the entities involved. (Snap and TikTok reached a settlement prior to trial.)

“That amount is trivial for the Metas of the world,” Fitzpatrick remarked. “However, when you multiply that $6 million by the multitude of cases against them, it results in a staggering figure.”

“We respectfully contest these rulings and will seek to appeal,” a Meta representative informed TechCrunch. “Simplifying a complex issue like adolescent mental health to a single cause risks neglecting the many broader challenges facing youths today and disregards the reality that numerous teens depend on digital communities for connection and belonging.”

During the litigation process, newly unveiled internal documents from Meta highlighted a trend of inaction regarding the acknowledged adverse effects of its platforms on minors, as well as a focused effort to increase the amount of time teens spent on its apps, even during school hours or through “finstas,” which are “fake Instagram” accounts created by teens specifically to avoid detection by parents or teachers.

One document exhibited findings from a 2019 study, in which Meta conducted 24 in-person, individual interviews with individuals whose use of the product had been designated as problematic — a classification affecting an estimated 12.5% of users. 

“The most reliable external research suggests that Facebook’s influence on users’ well-being is negative,” the report indicates.

Several documents referenced remarks made by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri regarding their focus on engaging with teenage users. Zuckerberg even remarked that for Facebook Live to be successful among teens, his “guess is we’ll need to be very good at not notifying parents/teachers.”

In other documents, Meta staff casually discussed the company’s objectives for enhancing teen user retention.

“We discovered that one of the things we must optimize for is peeking at your phone in the middle of Chemistry :),” one employee penned in an email to Meta CPO Chris Cox.

“No one wakes up intending to maximize the number of times they check Instagram that day,” Meta VP of Product Max Eulenstein wrote in an internal email in January 2021. “Yet, that’s precisely what our product teams are striving to achieve.”

A Meta spokesperson shared with TechCrunch that many of the newly disclosed documents date back nearly a decade, but the company is attentive to feedback from parents, experts, and law enforcement on how the platform can be enhanced.

“We do not set goals related to teen time spent today,” the spokesperson stated, referencing Instagram Teen Accounts, introduced in 2024, which incorporate built-in safety measures for young users. These safeguards comprise defaulting accounts to private and permitting only those they follow to tag or mention them in posts. Instagram will also send reminders after 60 minutes of usage encouraging teens to exit the app, an adjustment that can only be made for users under 16 with parental consent. 

For Kelly Stonelake, a Director of Product Marketing at Meta, who was part of the company from 2009 to 2024, these developments are not surprising. (Stonelake is currently litigating against Meta for claimed gender-based discrimination and harassment.) 

“The substantial amount of unsealed evidence truly illustrates what I experienced firsthand,” she expressed to TechCrunch. 

At Meta, Stonelake spearheaded “go-to-market” strategies for the VR social application Horizon Worlds as it launched for teenagers. She alleges that she raised alarms over ineffective content moderation tools in the metaverse, but her concerns were dismissed.

The U.S. government has demonstrated significant interest in the topic of online safety for children, particularly following the release of damaging internal documents by Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen in 2021, revealing that Meta was aware of Instagram’s detrimental effects on adolescent girls. 

While Congress has proposed several bills aimed at enhancing children’s online safety, many privacy advocates argue that these initiatives may do more to surveil adults and restrict speech than to protect minors.

“There is no scenario where enacting censorship or ‘age verification’ legislation, under the pretense of ensuring children’s safety, won’t lead to widespread online censorship of content and speech that is deemed undesirable,” stated Fight for the Future director Evan Greer.

Stonelake previously lobbied on Capitol Hill for the Kids Online Safety Act, which has gained the most traction among these legislative efforts, receiving backing from corporations such as Microsoft, Snap, X, and Apple. However, as the bill has progressed and evolved, she has grown increasingly critical of it.

“I am advocating for a ‘no’ vote on the current iteration,” she remarked, pointing to the bill’s preemption clauses that would override state regulations concerning tech firms. “There is verbiage in the latest draft that would obstruct access to the courts for school districts, grieving families, and states — and that’s outrageous.”

This language could potentially impede the very case brought forth by New Mexico against Meta. 

“We need stakeholders to engage in discussions around solutions, rather than what’s happening now, which is merely telling a different narrative to both sides of the political aisle to incite them and instill fear,” Stonelake asserted. “The real solution will require complexity and nuance and will need to consider multiple priorities.”

TikTok has discreetly introduced a hidden emoji game accessible through your DMs. The game’s objective is straightforward: bounce as high as possible by jumping on alligators using your finger. Steer clear of the skeleton alligators, and watch out — broken alligators vanish after just one landing, so you must swiftly jump to the one above.

If you direct your jump toward a floating emoji, you’ll receive a speed boost that aids your ascent. The same applies when you land on an alligator equipped with a propeller. If you miss landing on an alligator or land on a skeleton, it’s game over. The aim of the game is to achieve a higher bounce than your rival. While playing, you’ll see both your score and your opponent’s highest score displayed in the top-right corner.

TikTok informed TechCrunch on Tuesday that the game is globally available and can be played in both individual DMs and group chats.

To play the game, send an emoji in any chat and click on it to start. The emoji you select will be the one that floats on the screen to provide you with a boost. You can choose any emoji, but the game can only be accessed by sending a single emoji at a time.

TikTok states that this Easter egg was introduced to enhance the messaging experience and incorporate a fun competitive aspect into DMs on the platform.

With this rollout, TikTok is emulating Instagram’s strategy. Instagram launched its own hidden emoji DM game two years ago, and TikTok’s version mirrors a similar idea. In Instagram’s game, players use their finger to move a paddle to keep an emoji bouncing, with the game concluding when the emoji falls.

TikTok is not the sole social media platform trying out DM games. Meta confirmed to TechCrunch in January that Threads is looking into chat games. The company is internally testing a basketball game that allows users to virtually shoot hoops by swiping their finger.

The caller ID application Truecaller, rooted in Sweden, announced on Tuesday that it has achieved the significant milestone of 500 million active users every month on its platform. The company also reported surpassing 150 million users outside of India, which remains its largest market with over 350 million monthly active users.

According to the company, it gained 50 million users in 2025, and its overall user base has doubled over the last five years. In April 2025, Truecaller stated it had accumulated more than 450 million users. Additionally, the company highlighted that upwards of 4 million individuals are subscribed to its premium plans.

“Increasing numbers of individuals require assistance in handling spam, scams, and uninvited communications daily,” remarked Truecaller CEO Rishit Jhunjhunwala in a statement. “Achieving 500 million users illustrates the magnitude of that necessity and the confidence that people have in Truecaller to enhance communication safety.”

“Our commitment is centered on perpetually enhancing Truecaller with advanced technology and innovative features that safeguard users before, during, and after every call or message. Ultimately, our goal is to create a more secure and trustworthy communication environment for all. We are now focusing on the next target: 1 billion users,” he further added.

In recent years, Truecaller has been focusing on broadening its offerings beyond caller identification. Recently, the company introduced a feature that allows one individual to become an administrator and terminate calls for family group users to prevent scams. Truecaller has also been exploring the use of AI for call screening and responses.

Truecaller informed TechCrunch last month that it is also trialing an AI feature capable of automatically monitoring disconnected calls when specific scam-related terms, like “digital arrest,” are identified. This tactic involves fraudsters masquerading as law enforcement officers to extract sensitive information or funds from the callers.

In India, the company is encountering obstacles from the nation’s Caller Name Presentation (CNAP) system, which showcases the name of the caller as registered with their telecom providers.

Rec Room, once recognized as a burgeoning leader in the social gaming sector, declared on Monday that it will terminate its platform on June 1. 

For those who cherish the platform or have enjoyed crafting or exploring its virtual landscapes, this announcement likely comes as a blow. Over time, Rec Room drew in over 150 million users, establishing itself as a prime destination for social gaming, particularly during the pandemic when many sought online connections. 

Established in 2016 by Nick Fajt and Cameron Brown, Rec Room gained notable interest and funding, achieving a valuation of $3.5 billion in December 2021. 

However, despite the vast player base, Rec Room faced challenges in finding a viable revenue model. Expenses soared, and the income couldn’t keep pace. Even with a robust community and innovative features like Maker AI for game development, the financial situation deteriorated, resulting in considerable layoffs earlier this year. 

“We invested a significant amount of time trying to make the numbers feasible,” the company stated in its announcement on Monday. “But with the recent changes in the VR market, alongside wider challenges in gaming, reaching profitability has become difficult enough that we’ve taken the hard step to close down.” 

Effective immediately, no new accounts or friend requests will be permitted. Creators will not be able to distribute monetized content, and the platform will cease operations at 12 p.m. PT on June 1.