> I mean that was the cost of taking control of Twitter. It wasn't. He structured the acquisition such that Twitter took on substantial new debt rather than pr

> I mean that was the cost of taking control of Twitter. It wasn't. He structured the acquisition such that Twitter took on substantial new debt rather than providing the funds himself. Was it a good move? Honestly I'm not savvy's enough about this kind of thing to say, but it definitely wasn't the only move. A substantial part of Twitter's net loss is because he chose to saddle it with new debt.