The fact Discord isn't profitable (and hasn't been) is well documented.
Also, operating at a loss isn't necessarily bad (i.e. if you expand or spend more on R&D your profits shrink). Companies might choose to spend more on R&D and not be profitable (e.g. Amazon for a long time).
If you can raise funds outside of revenue (i.e. outside of directly selling your products), you can keep operating even if you're not actually generating any income directly. Typically that will be in the form of investment and loans. So even if your expenses (incl. repayments for outstanding loans etc) are higher than your revenue, you can stay in business as long as you can convince enough investors that it's still worth their while to give you their money.
I don't know whether this is true for Discord specifically, but I understand it's a fairly common strategy, especially for companies where their best chance of success is by being the only player in a given market.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/8/24065999/uber-earnings-pro...
Oh, buddy. That's how it's supposed to work, but that is not how it works at all.
The strategy here is often just trying to operate at a loss longer than your competition. If your competition finally can no longer borrow, you buy them up and have a monopoly on the market, allowing you to price gouge.
There are other reasons a lender might lend to a perpetually-unprofitable company. For example, you might lend to a company to maintain a competitor who doesn't really compete, in order to avoid a monopoly breakup, or lend to a holding company that holds product with no intention to sell it, in order to maintain artificial scarcity (i.e. housing, diamonds).
Note that in none of these examples are you competing to provide the best products at the lowest prices.
Companies can operate at a deficit for many years without vanishing, usually because they have venture capital funding or investor backing.
