Live data from Hacker News

Investors think Snapchat is worth $4 billion. That’s insane.

washingtonpost.com

51–55 of 55 posts

Re: Investors think Snapchat is worth $4 billion. That’s insane.

#51
post #34
post #8

These start ups get massive investment, IPO for retarded valuations, and all the venture firms/owners cash out leaving the market and institutional investors holding the rest. Slowly these companies die.. but the original people have already made their money and are on to something else. Classic. For instance, is there any sane reason why a website like rapgenius.com needs to IPO to raise public funds? The answer is…

Do you really want to know why rapgenius needs IPO money or are you just using it as a rhetorical vessel to justify use of such inflamatory lexis as "retarded" and "classic"? I have no hopes on influencing your opinion but want to provide my version of the explanation. Surely it is only an opinion, I have no authority on the subject. Rapgenius needs to IPO to massively scale in text annotation business providing cont…

Good point.

Re: Investors think Snapchat is worth $4 billion. That’s insane.

#53
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "nailed" you mean "reduced a probability of rational discourse by trolling" then sure, he nailed it.

You're reacting more to his tone than his content. He's right about how VC-istan works. There's this new engine of extreme productivity that no one understands well; those with early access loot it (getting into private financing rounds where prices are set on the golf course; using VC connections to be air-drop executives) and the public (including Bay Area engineers) eats the bill through failed companies and sudde…

Well, I naively continue to expect rationality and solutions on HN including the solution to these VC shenanigans.

Re: Investors think Snapchat is worth $4 billion. That’s insane.

#54
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely feels like the 21st century gold rush where everyone's just rushing in before it's too late just in case that hot tech startup becomes the next Google. I don't know if wisdom can overpower the greed that people have.

Gold rush is a zero-sum game with unsustainable business model, while startups are not any of these things. I feel that such comparisons are misplaced and do not provide useful abstractions to effeciently reason about startups.

Fair enough that gold is a zero sum game and perhaps gold rush might be the wrong terminology to use. What I really was referring to was the fact that many investors just jump on the bandwagon to avoid missing out on the next big thing. Even when the business model is unclear.
Post reply on HN