This 'new valuation debunking' can also be overdone. There's never one single "valuation" - everything is dynamic, contingent on assumptions, and subject to sur

This 'new valuation debunking' can also be overdone. There's never one single "valuation" - everything is dynamic, contingent on assumptions, and subject to surprising discontinuities. The naive extrapolated "post-money valuation" number is still significant under many scenarios, and perhaps even the 'modal' (most-likely) or median scenario envisioned by the business insiders who are selling the shares. After all, it's the exact price that, assuming a 1X liquidation preference, the venture would have to appreciate beyond for the VC to make any positive return – which is after all the whole point. It's the exit value at which the insiders take exactly the negotiated dilution, not extra dilution to protect the investors. (If the insiders' own reserve value was less, they'd likely be selling larger stakes, or the whole company.) Generally, also, minority stakes like this have a discount to the full-company value because they're at the mercy of the majority/control stakes. (Though, preferences affecting governance also affect this.) At such a large valuation, and such a small (5%) stake, I wonder what preferences were really offered. It looks like a raise from strength, like Facebook's pre-IPO raises – another time when armchair skeptics scoffed at the implied valuations (which in hindsight were bargains). Maybe the preferences aren't that big in such a case.