4 ms·
I think the key misunderstanding here is judging bit.ly (or any other company's) value by whether/how much money VCs invest in them. VCs raised money which the
by nir 18y ago
I think the key misunderstanding here is judging bit.ly (or any other company's) value by whether/how much money VCs invest in them.
VCs raised money which they now are expected to invest. They don't know what will end up a good investment, since they don't have some future-predicting sixth sense that the rest of us lack. Bit.ly has some buzz around it, a few A-list bloggers mention it occasionally and the word "Twitter" can be seen in a few places on its front page, so it gets dropped $2m.
I'm not being sarcastic here - these are valid reasons to invest, the same features might help the VC flip it later to, say, Twitter for $10m. (And there's always AOL! :)
- moe 18y agoI'm not being sarcastic here - these are valid reasons to invest, the same features might help the VC flip it later to, say, Twitter for $10m. (And there's always AOL! :) Cynism at its best. A stupid investment can be justified when there's reason to believe that someone even more stupid will come around to bail you out later. Don't get me wrong, I do see the truth in this statement. I also find it deeply disturbing.