Hermes agent maker Nous Research in talks for new funding at $1.5B valuation 47%

By Ivan Mehta39% Marina Temkin59%

7/13/2026, 11:31:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 18.3% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 475 faulty-reasoning hits from 350 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.3% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,801 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.90% of the article peer group.

Nous Research, the startup behind the open-source Hermes agent, is finalizing a new round of funding led by Robot Ventures, with significant participation from USV and other prominent investors at a $1.5 billion valuation, according to three sources with knowledge of the deal. 
The company is raising at least $75 million, and fielded a high level of interest from investors, according to the people. 
Nous Research declined to comment. 
USV and Robot Ventures didn’t respond to our request for comment. 
The company was founded in 2023 by Jeffrey Quesnelle, Karan Malhotra, Ryan Teknium, Shivani Mitra. 
Before this round, it had raised a total of $70 million in funding from investors including Paradigm, Robot Ventures, North Island Ventures, OSS Capital, and Balaji Srinivasan, according to Crunchbase. 
Weeks after Openclaw's agent went viral, Nous Research released its own competitor called Hermes. 
OpenClaw is an agent that runs locally on a PC and can perform tasks on behalf of the user. 
One key difference is that Hermes shipped with built-in “skills,” such as web search, coding and image understanding. 
Furthermore, it was designed to automatically learn from people's usage and build more skills without manual intervention. 
Additionally, the startup has released language models focused on coding and math. 
Just like Openclaw, users can automate tasks with Hermes and chat with these agents or receive messages from them in apps like Telegram and Discord. 
These tools have become increasingly popular as they allow users to run their AI agents remotely and around the clock. 
Open-source and widely adopted, Hermes has amassed a massive following on GitHub, boasting roughly 214,000 stars and nearly 40,000 forks. 
Developers can run Hermes on a desktop or on a virtual private server. 
But Nous Research also offers a cloud-hosted version, which some users may find to be more user-friendly, avoiding any setting up on their own machines. 
The hosted version is available via various paid tiers ranging from $20-$200 a month. 
Sources say the new funding will help to expand Hermes' products and business model further. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 2.0%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Ivan Mehta: 1.3%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias3.7%This article: 11.7%Ivan Mehta: 3.3%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.5%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 2.8%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Ivan Mehta: 4.1%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Ivan Mehta: 5.9%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 3.1%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 3.5%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Ivan Mehta: 4.4%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect10.9%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.9%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Ivan Mehta: 4.5%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.8%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Ivan Mehta: 6.4%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 2.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.7%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.0%Ivan Mehta: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.3%Ivan Mehta: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof10.3%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.9%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.1%Ivan Mehta: 1.9%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.1%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground7.1%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.3%Ivan Mehta: 1.7%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote18.3%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.3%Ivan Mehta: 1.4%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice12.3%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Ivan Mehta: 7.6%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.6%

350 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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