The only way I can make sense of it is using logic similar to [this][1]. If I assume VC's consider slack a "force multiplier" for startups, then I can see it ra

The only way I can make sense of it is using logic similar to [this][1]. If I assume VC's consider slack a "force multiplier" for startups, then I can see it raising investments far above the value it provides when viewed standalone. The fact that they already have a popular competitor in the space (hipchat) would normally make such a high valuation seemingly more confusing, but if viewed using the force multiplier logic, maybe less so? There could be concern that having only a single frequently used tool would make it too easy for someone to "own" a startup's lifeblood, so better to have more than one. (similar to github and bitbucket?) I guess the alternative is that slack has some investor specific info about their product pipline where they are pitching other companion tools that work well together, and/or compete more directly with other popular services. Like atlassian/jira or something. [1]: http://words.steveklabnik.com/is-npm-worth-26mm http://words.steveklabnik.com/is-npm-worth-26mm