assets != profit They had 1.2B for funding, then they IPO'ed, then they even made some weird stuff like [1] (which looked like a really desperate 'running out

assets != profit They had 1.2B for funding, then they IPO'ed, then they even made some weird stuff like [1] (which looked like a really desperate 'running out of cash' decision to me), sum all of that stuff up and you can easily explain those 3.6 billion plus all the other money that they had burn. Sure they won't go out of business soon, but they will when all that money's gone. Twitter will be the flagship example of the second dot-com boom. And they deserve it, so many wrong business decisions during these years that you start giving Thiel's pot-smoking theory a good chance. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/09/12/twitter-takes-advantage-of-soaring-stock-with-1-3b-convertible-debt-offering/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/09/12/twitter...