As other comments point out, whether there is a bubble (extreme overvaluation) or not depends in part on the financial background. If you just look at interest

As other comments point out, whether there is a bubble (extreme overvaluation) or not depends in part on the financial background. If you just look at interest rates, they tell us that the future will be stable, the world is awash in capital, and you'll have decades to extract the value of your investment. For example, the $247 per LNKD user could be reasonable, notwithstanding that only around 1/4 of these users reportedly are active. So over 20 years, getting about a dollar a month per user will break even. And this is just one aspect, since global growth trends and unlocking network effects offer more value. But these metrics don't give the whole story. The central banking infrastructure pumps capital into the world due to deflationary fears, so can we really trust interest rates and assumptions of stability and growth trends to determine whether the value of unicorns is enduring? An interesting aspect is Altman's position, argued by citing "they were wrong time and time again" data points. His day job is to create new ventures, some of which will presumably disrupt existing giants and lower their value. This dynamic is dangerous to the assumption of stability in organizational trends upon which value metrics are based. In some sense, there is overvaluation (because new opportunities are undervalued), if not a bubble.