Popular open source AI developer tool Ollama raises $65M 50%

By Julie Bort56%

7/9/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 14% saturation with 133 hits. Analysis detected 1,858 faulty-reasoning hits from 947 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.1% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,031 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.40% of the article peer group.

The popular open source AI tool Ollama has raised a $65 million Series B, led by Theory Venture, founder and CEO Jeff Morgan tells TechCrunch. 
This round follows a previous $15 million Series A led by Benchmark’s Peter Fenton. 
All told, the company has now raised $88 million. 
Ollama, which launched in 2023, helps devs run open-weight AI models on their PCs, getting them up and running in minutes. 
It has been praised by developers across countless training sites, videos , blogs and social media posts. 
It has amassed 176,000 stars and nearly 17,000 forks on GitHub . 
Developers can also use Ollama to find models and access larger, more complex ones that it hosts on its neocloud via several subscription tiers, from free to $100/month. 
It also tracks usage based on GPU time, not token limits. 
If the mission to help developers more easily build on their PCs sounds vaguely familiar, it should. 
Morgan and his co-founder Michael Chiang previously helped build Docker Desktop. 
They landed at Docker after it bought their previous startup, Kitematic. 
Docker makes containers that help cloud apps easy to move from cloud to cloud, or from desktop to cloud, abstracting away all the pesky hardware configuration issues. 
So Ollama essentially did for AI what Docker and Docker Desktop did for cloud. 
“Open models started coming out in 2023 but they were really hard to use,” Morgan said. 
They had been geared toward researchers at the time, not programmers. 
“As a result, it was really hard to get them up and running.” 
Three years after launching, Ollama is now “used by over 8.9 million developers every month, sitting in 85% of the Fortune 500 and growing like crazy,” he said. 
All with only 14 employees. 
That career experience is what drew Benchmark’s Peter Fenton to lead its earlier round and join the board. 
“What Jeff and Michael built with Docker is being used by 10 million-plus developers every day. 
The creative powers to create a product that goes to ubiquity for developers is extremely rare,” Fenton told TechCrunch. 
Morgan and Fenton declined to discuss the startup’s revenues and new valuation. 
However, Morgan says that the proving point for Ollama as a business happened around January, when OpenClaw became hot. 
That’s when larger open models “suddenly became able to do these agentic tasks, like coding. 
Obviously, we saw the explosion of the assistants like OpenClaw, and this idea that open models can get real work done.” 
Since then, the industry has been abuzz with the idea that paying users (particularly deep-pocketed enterprises and fast-growing AI application-layer startups) will increasingly turn to more affordable open models, reserving their use of closed models like Anthropic for more of an as-needed basis. 
“I still think that this is the part that most of the debate gets wrong. 
It’s not an either/or,” Fenton says of open versus closed AI models. 
There will be plenty of business for both, he contends. 
However, every company with high inference expenses  the costs of using the models  has a “vital existential project” pushing them to move “to open-weight models,” he says. 
There’s plenty of evidence that such startups and enterprises are already turning to open models for their daily needs. 
That, obviously, bodes well for Ollama’s cloud business. 
But even more interesting, Ollama is another example of how AI is birthing a large new crop of open source projects that are turning into companies pursued by VCs. 
There are open source inference providers like Inferact, maker of vLLM, and RadixArk, maker of SGLang . 
There is OpenClaw and its alternatives like NanoClaw. 
There are even tiny startups building their own open models from scratch, like Arcee. 
To be sure, not every Ollama fan has been happy that the company has been pursuing making a living. 
About a year ago, a bunch of blog and social media posts complained that its cloud business was drawing attention away from its beloved free project and cited Ollama as an example of the so-called “Enshittification” of dev tools , as the trend is called. 
But Morgan sees its cloud service as an evolution of its open source mission to help programmers find and easily use models. 
Those state-of-the-art, large, open models are often “too big to run on your own computer. 
So we said, ‘Hey, let’s help find the compute for that,’” he explained. 
Board member Fenton adds, “Nothing has changed for the core product that’s free on the desktop. 
There’s zero change to the premise that this is the place you can discover and run local models.” 
AI , Benchmark Partners , Exclusive , ollama , Startups , TC 
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission . 
This doesn’t affect our editorial independence. 
Julie Bort is the Startups/Venture Desk editor for TechCrunch. 
You can contact or verify outreach from Julie by emailing julie.bort@techcrunch.com or via @Julie188 on X. 
Last chance to save up to $190 on TechCrunch Founder Summit. 
Join 1,000+ founders and VCs at all stages for real-world scaling insights and connections that move the needle. 
Savings end June 26, 11:59 p.m. 
PT . 
If you use Google, you’re training its AI. 
Here’s how to opt out. 
Reddit is using LLMs to solve a problem LLMs largely created 
Amazon will stop accepting new customers for Mechanical Turk 
5 desk gadgets that can make your workday better 
New Google commercial imagines a Declaration of Independence written with help from AI 
Chevy built an all-American EV truck  why is nobody buying it? 
Mark Zuckerberg tells staff that AI agents haven’t progressed as quickly as he’d hoped 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Julie Bort: 4.1%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 1.5%Julie Bort: 2.7%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias1.5%This article: 11.4%Julie Bort: 7.5%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic11.4%This article: 6.0%Julie Bort: 2.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 2.0%Julie Bort: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias2.0%This article: 2.1%Julie Bort: 3.9%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 2.7%Julie Bort: 4.4%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 1.8%Julie Bort: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.8%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.0%Julie Bort: 4.2%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias14.0%This article: 1.2%Julie Bort: 1.0%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 8.9%Julie Bort: 5.4%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias8.9%This article: 5.4%Julie Bort: 3.0%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias5.4%This article: 1.9%Julie Bort: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias1.8%This article: 2.0%Julie Bort: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.0%This article: 10.2%Julie Bort: 8.6%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Julie Bort: 4.1%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.6%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Julie Bort: 7.9%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 8.9%Julie Bort: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma8.9%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.5%Julie Bort: 6.9%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.4%Julie Bort: 3.8%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon6.4%This article: 6.5%Julie Bort: 2.0%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion6.5%This article: 1.8%Julie Bort: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question1.8%This article: 7.0%Julie Bort: 4.0%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 2.3%Julie Bort: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.6%Julie Bort: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division3.6%This article: 8.8%Julie Bort: 3.6%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal8.8%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Julie Bort: 3.4%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Julie Bort: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.4%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading1.4%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.0%Julie Bort: 4.5%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote13.0%This article: 2.0%Julie Bort: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 13.6%Julie Bort: 7.3%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice13.6%This article: 1.4%Julie Bort: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination1.4%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Julie Bort: 3.6%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.4%

947 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech658writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 16 words • 100.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 10 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMorgan • 13 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Fenton • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Peter Fenton

100%flagged-word coverage
135 attributed words47% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%Peter Fenton: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -17.8 ptsWriter: 17.8%Peter Fenton: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+3.0 ptsWriter: 8.8%Peter Fenton: 11.9%11.9%Quote-first Misdirection-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Peter Fenton: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Peter Fenton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.