Also it's visually misleading, the area of these segments doesn't matter, it's only the radius in a linear fashion.

Assuming the perceived value is most commonly interpreted as area: the larger numbers look even bigger than they are by a magnitude since the area scales with r²/2 (circular sector area) while the actual value r is only growing linearly.

Simplified calculation (no doughnut, no offset):

       linear    area
   a   11     => 60 units
   b   46     => 1058 units
       difference in value b/a
       x4.2   => x17.6

There's a whole chapter on mathematically troublesome graphics in How To Lie With Statistics.

I suspect some of the other companies listed on their will follow suit...

that's their valuation until someone pays a different price for a share or they go out of business.

That is not how their value would be accounted for from any actual accounting or tax standard that has ever existed in the US.

Using your premise, feel free to try arguing with the IRS that your billion dollar company is worth only $100 based on you having sold one share for a penny.

The value of wealth 'at rest' isn't too important from a tax point of view in the US (except for real property) since there isn't a wealth tax in the US. Transactions are taxed, and if you sold a share for a penny the cap gains you paid would be based on that price. (Of course, the IRS would be suspicious of that kind of economically implausible transaction)