Better a company that generates revenue than one that uses all it's money on growth and has billions $ negative. I hate this idea of a growth rate being "too slow", all it does is encourage monopolisation which is bad for people.
Edit: spelling
To pre-answer the common rebuttal I get, that VCs are taking moonshots at the chance of a VERY HIGH return; I'd ask why not look at VC investments in the sense of a more traditional portfolio, where you'd have your growth stocks, your value stocks, etc. If I could find a vehicle that reliably gave 20% YOY I'd throw fistfulls of money at it.
So can someone enlighten me as to why this isn't a viable way of looking at VC investment?
In ads, you want to be GOOG/FB, not TWTR.
Because it confuses revenues and earnings? It defends Snap chat for not having "negative billions" when, in fact, it is has negative billions.