4 ms·

Wow, thanks for the info. This is indeed quite a huge sum of money for such a cheap service from which you can easily migrate. That’s a bit worrying.

• rmdes 3y ago
  should OSS users of Vaultwarden be worried?
  • 1una 3y ago
    Maybe. Vaultwarden is just a compatible server. All the clients (web, browser extension, desktop, cli and mobile apps) are still maintained by Bitwarden.
    • kioleanu 3y ago
      Since the extensions themselves are still open source and very stable, they will probably be forked
  • e12e 3y ago
    Please note that bitwarden server is floss too - vaultwarden is just a simpler backend to self-host (and without a dependency on Microsoft SQL server): https://github.com/bitwarden/server https://github.com/bitwarden/server https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden
• bradfa 3y ago
  It depends. If the point of the VC money is to go after enterprise customers and to expand into other enterprisey software security products, then $100M seems reasonable to me, especially for the time when the investment happened. The VC market seems to have cooled quite a bit from when Bitwarden took that investment, so times change and maybe they were just striking while the iron was hot? The $10/year individual plan wouldn't warrant $100M investment. But going after big companies who are going to commit to $X/year/employee or similar kinds of pricing packages might, especially if Bitwarden integrates with existing corporate directory systems and such for delegating and managing accounts.