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 no

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.