You are putting together a quick brief on a venture portfolio, and you land on the Founders Fund page in the APIs.io catalog. The header gives you a clean number: 63 portfolio companies, and "63 publish APIs here." You are about to paste that into your notes when you read the paragraph underneath. It says 35 of the 63, or 56%, publish APIs, and 28 are profiles without one.
You check the band list to see which number holds. Five exemplar, seven strong, ten developing, eight thin, three emerging and two minimal. Add them up and you get 35. The header is wrong. The post says plainly why: the layout prints the network count under a publishing label, and that one is the catalog's to fix.
The real number is still a good one. Those 35 publishers average 43.9 on the Kin Score and 28.7 on Agent Readiness. Twelve are top-rated, and 19 are agent-ready or agent-native. At the top of the book you find Twilio at 86.0, OpenAI and Stripe at 82.6 each, Asana at 72.7 and Figma at 71.4, all exemplar. Crusoe at 65.9 and Scale AI at 64.4 follow as strong.
Then you try to cross-check a company on its own provider page and hit a second mismatch. The scores agree between the two pages, but the contract counts do not. The Founders Fund page counts "published contracts" and the provider page counts "API contracts indexed." For Crusoe it reads 64 against 2. Those may be two legitimate measures, the post allows, but the labels do not tell you why they differ. So you take its advice: compare scores across this book, and leave the API counts alone until they are labeled properly.
A third thing catches your eye in the portfolio list. Oculus resolves to the Meta record and shows Meta's 56.9. The Athletic resolves to The New York Times Company and shows its 43.8. Both are real portfolio names, but those scores measure the parent's developer surface, not the company Founders Fund backed. Oculus sits among the book's 12 top-rated companies and The Athletic among its 10 developing ones, so a portfolio rollup is partly crediting work done elsewhere. The post is direct that the mapping is the catalog's decision, and that it should be visible on the page.
Now you read the book the way it was meant to be read. The portfolio is a hard-tech and fintech list, and the scores split along that line. The top is API-first software. The defense, government and aerospace names sit lower: Palantir at 36.7, Anduril at 31.9 and SpaceX at 31.6, all thin. The post adds a caveat you keep in your notes: that is what the public record shows, not what those companies run privately.
The sharpest finding is about agents. Monaco has a 53.4 Kin Score and a 61.9 agent score, higher than Twilio, OpenAI or Stripe on the agent side. Flexport has the widest gap in that direction. Those two are the only ones of the 35 that score higher on agents than on the Kin Score. Flexport is 16.1 on the Kin Score, which is emerging, and 37.5 on agents, which is agent-ready. The two scores measure different things, and a high agent score alone does not tell you the contract underneath is good.
What you take away is a corrected figure and a set of cautions. Thirty-five publishers out of 63 is a healthy share for a book this weighted to hard tech, and its five leaders are all exemplars. Use 35, not 63. Trust the scores more than the contract counts, and remember that two entries borrow their parents' numbers. The page owes you three fixes: the header count, a label on the contract counts, and a visible note where a company is scored through its parent.
Read the original: https://apis.io/2026/11/08/founders-funds-page-says-63-companies-publish-apis-and-its-own-text-says-35/