7 ms·

Hey Patrick, we'd be happy to include any numbers that you share publicly. We gave you that opportunity yesterday, but you declined. You guys have been fundrais

Hey Patrick, we'd be happy to include any numbers that you share publicly. We gave you that opportunity yesterday, but you declined. You guys have been fundraising and having M&A talks over the last 6+ mo, meaning your numbers are "out there." I find it hard to believe that everyone we spoke to is grossly inaccurate in the exact same ballpark. I'm happy to concede that the figures may be outdated, and we acknowledged that in the article. But we also compared you guys against competitors' metrics from the same period. Our goal is to be fair and accurate. The more you share, obviously, the better.

adamnemecek 13y ago
Seems like a blackmail-y proposition.
throwawayun 13y ago
> The more you share, obviously, the better. Better for who? They obviously have a strategy, and your comment is rude and presumptive. This is why people often hate the press.
- mcarney7 13y ago
  We didn't write "stripe's metrics today are X." We wrote, "Stripe's metrics 6 months ago, when they were in fundraising and M&A talks were X...during the same period its competitors metrics were Y, Z." Seems fair and accurate. Stripe doesn't need to share data if it doesn't want, but then criticizing us for being inaccurate is a bit ridiculous. Also, it's not our job to tell Stripe's (or any company's) story as they want it told. It's to report on the ecosystem. Its better for the ecosystem – investors, competitors, customers, etc. – if they share transparent numbers.
  - ivanca 13y ago
    >Stripe doesn't need to share data if it doesn't want, but then criticizing us for being inaccurate is a bit ridiculous. Ridiculous is to making ANY present tense assertions when your using old data, like in the title you don't say "Memo for Stripe for where it was 6 months ago" or any other indication of the time period at hand. Your magazine is the only thing here poisonous for the ecosystem.
  - lotso 13y ago
    Writing articles on anonymous sources' information and criticizing a private company for not sharing their data, so you can write a new blog post is a bit ridiculous.
ivanca 13y ago
>I'm happy to concede that the figures may be outdated "Share your metrics or we are going to assume and publish your company as being today where it was many months ago" is pretty shady journalism. >We gave you that opportunity yesterday How generous of you.
- wdewind 13y ago
  No, they make it extremely clear that the numbers are old in the article, and then give a pretty generous extrapolated figure.
  - ivanca 13y ago
    "Extremly clear" would have been to mention the time-period in the title. And "pretty generous" according to who? you?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
sama 13y ago
It does not work this way. You do not get to cite made up numbers with anonymous sources that clearly contradict some public info (e.g. the graph PG tweeted in November) and use that disinformation as an attempt at blackmail to get the company to release its numbers. Flipped around, Stripe would not write a blog post about Pando saying all sorts of wildly wrong things and then say "well if you want to correct us and tell us that your traffic is not dwindling and you're not almost out of money, we'll give you that opportunity because our goal is to be fair and accurate".
kposehn 13y ago
Four issues with the article: #1: I understand the desire to do comparison in the market and look at Stripe's multiple vs. others, but PayPal and Stripe are not equal in forward looking growth. To try and apply Stripe's valuation multiple to PayPal's earnings assumes that PayPal is in the same sort of growth stage, which it clearly isn't. And most likely, Braintree was not either when they sold. Why sell if you're eating everyone's lunch? #2: While numbers from six months ago may have been circulated and Pando apparently has those numbers, a lot can change in that timeframe. Large deals can be closed, growth can accelerate or very important technology can mature that has the potential to upset the status quo in Stripe's favor. General analysis of the market and knowing the habits of several of Stripe's investors makes me think that a key factor that is not public is in play. I expect a deal that gives them far better profit margin. #3: "Stripe is a transaction-based business with a clear model — and one not growing particularly rapidly if it took two years to get to just $1.5 billion in annual payments volume our sources report as of six months ago." This is a bad assumption to make. As a rule, I never assume a company has a transparent business model as there are many aspects of technology and deal structure outsiders are not privy to. Who is to say Stripe doesn't have a new payments product on the way? Would it be so crazy for them to start snapping up downstream fulfillment companies with an $80mm war chest to maximize profit margin? Maybe so as they of course don't want to compete with customers, but who knows? #4: Another issue with the assumption about payment volume is a linear growth curve. If you say "Braintree did $12bn in payment volume when it sold in late 2013, that means $2bn in volume growth per year, more than stripe with $500mm per year over 3 years of life". However, looking at articles that state Braintree's payment volume shows they were apparently doing only $3bn annually in 2011 at their $34mm Series-C (http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/29/accel-puts-34-million-in-online-payments-platform-braintree/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/29/accel-puts-34-million-in-on...). If Stripe is assumed to be making a rapid growth stride to make this raise, then they likely have a similar (or stronger) growth curve than Braintree did at that point (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/403183731449413632/photo/1 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/403183731449413632/photo/1) The problem I have with the article is that you're making a series of assumptions and treating them as fact, or at least as highly likely. This is difficult to make stick with a company that is deliberately opaque, as is their right to be. * I am of course analyzing this from a very-outside perspective and my assumptions should be taken with a grain of salt. Or ten.
pg 13y ago
"Our goal is to be fair and accurate. The more you share, obviously, the better." We wouldn't want you guys to get hurt. And unless you do what we want, I'm afraid we can't guarantee your safety.

adamnemecek 13y ago

Seems like a blackmail-y proposition.

throwawayun 13y ago

> The more you share, obviously, the better. Better for who? They obviously have a strategy, and your comment is rude and presumptive. This is why people often hate the press.

mcarney7 13y ago
We didn't write "stripe's metrics today are X." We wrote, "Stripe's metrics 6 months ago, when they were in fundraising and M&A talks were X...during the same period its competitors metrics were Y, Z." Seems fair and accurate. Stripe doesn't need to share data if it doesn't want, but then criticizing us for being inaccurate is a bit ridiculous. Also, it's not our job to tell Stripe's (or any company's) story as they want it told. It's to report on the ecosystem. Its better for the ecosystem – investors, competitors, customers, etc. – if they share transparent numbers.
- ivanca 13y ago
  >Stripe doesn't need to share data if it doesn't want, but then criticizing us for being inaccurate is a bit ridiculous. Ridiculous is to making ANY present tense assertions when your using old data, like in the title you don't say "Memo for Stripe for where it was 6 months ago" or any other indication of the time period at hand. Your magazine is the only thing here poisonous for the ecosystem.
- lotso 13y ago
  Writing articles on anonymous sources' information and criticizing a private company for not sharing their data, so you can write a new blog post is a bit ridiculous.

ivanca 13y ago

>I'm happy to concede that the figures may be outdated "Share your metrics or we are going to assume and publish your company as being today where it was many months ago" is pretty shady journalism. >We gave you that opportunity yesterday How generous of you.

wdewind 13y ago
No, they make it extremely clear that the numbers are old in the article, and then give a pretty generous extrapolated figure.
- ivanca 13y ago
  "Extremly clear" would have been to mention the time-period in the title. And "pretty generous" according to who? you?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

sama 13y ago

It does not work this way. You do not get to cite made up numbers with anonymous sources that clearly contradict some public info (e.g. the graph PG tweeted in November) and use that disinformation as an attempt at blackmail to get the company to release its numbers. Flipped around, Stripe would not write a blog post about Pando saying all sorts of wildly wrong things and then say "well if you want to correct us and tell us that your traffic is not dwindling and you're not almost out of money, we'll give you that opportunity because our goal is to be fair and accurate".

kposehn 13y ago

Four issues with the article: #1: I understand the desire to do comparison in the market and look at Stripe's multiple vs. others, but PayPal and Stripe are not equal in forward looking growth. To try and apply Stripe's valuation multiple to PayPal's earnings assumes that PayPal is in the same sort of growth stage, which it clearly isn't. And most likely, Braintree was not either when they sold. Why sell if you're eating everyone's lunch? #2: While numbers from six months ago may have been circulated and Pando apparently has those numbers, a lot can change in that timeframe. Large deals can be closed, growth can accelerate or very important technology can mature that has the potential to upset the status quo in Stripe's favor. General analysis of the market and knowing the habits of several of Stripe's investors makes me think that a key factor that is not public is in play. I expect a deal that gives them far better profit margin. #3: "Stripe is a transaction-based business with a clear model — and one not growing particularly rapidly if it took two years to get to just $1.5 billion in annual payments volume our sources report as of six months ago." This is a bad assumption to make. As a rule, I never assume a company has a transparent business model as there are many aspects of technology and deal structure outsiders are not privy to. Who is to say Stripe doesn't have a new payments product on the way? Would it be so crazy for them to start snapping up downstream fulfillment companies with an $80mm war chest to maximize profit margin? Maybe so as they of course don't want to compete with customers, but who knows? #4: Another issue with the assumption about payment volume is a linear growth curve. If you say "Braintree did $12bn in payment volume when it sold in late 2013, that means $2bn in volume growth per year, more than stripe with $500mm per year over 3 years of life". However, looking at articles that state Braintree's payment volume shows they were apparently doing only $3bn annually in 2011 at their $34mm Series-C (http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/29/accel-puts-34-million-in-online-payments-platform-braintree/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/29/accel-puts-34-million-in-on...). If Stripe is assumed to be making a rapid growth stride to make this raise, then they likely have a similar (or stronger) growth curve than Braintree did at that point (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/403183731449413632/photo/1 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/403183731449413632/photo/1) The problem I have with the article is that you're making a series of assumptions and treating them as fact, or at least as highly likely. This is difficult to make stick with a company that is deliberately opaque, as is their right to be. * I am of course analyzing this from a very-outside perspective and my assumptions should be taken with a grain of salt. Or ten.

pg 13y ago

"Our goal is to be fair and accurate. The more you share, obviously, the better." We wouldn't want you guys to get hurt. And unless you do what we want, I'm afraid we can't guarantee your safety.