The character Russ Hanneman on the TV show “Silicon Valley” took it a step further stating that having no revenue to speak of makes a company more valuable. It’s satire…but is it?
“In other words, the market is not a weighing machine, on which the value of each issue is recorded by an exact and impersonal mechanism, in accordance with its specific qualities. Rather should we say that the market is a voting machine, whereon countless individuals register choices which are the product partly of reason and partly of emotion.” -Security Analysis 1934
Revenue .. well, if you can get huge revenue with huge losses and convincingly demonstrate (mostly by spending) that more losses (= more capital) means more revenue can actually take you a long way. Almost all of the "unicorns" and "decacorns" embraced this model - lose $2-5 per $ of revenue but able to demonstrate almost unlimited market. Most of those companies can never, ever be profitable entities.
Depends on your definition of value. If a companies max revenue is $X, the farther away from $X they are the more of a return you can hope to get!