Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbesto | Hacker News Reader

It's losing money but it's slowing that loss relative to revenues. I don't understand what the story is here?

That yet another "Unicorn" is actually just smoke and mirrors, isn't profitable and has no realistic path to ever being so?

Perhaps that’s an incorrect assumption, that a unicorn needs to be profitable. All they need is to be growing, and show a potential for future upside. If they make net zero, or even keep losing money, doesn’t matter as long as the growth continues because there is always going to be someone else further down the road willing to buy into the story. In theory.

> there is always going to be someone else further down the road willing to buy into the story.

This doesn't point to a successful value adding business but rather mass market delusion...

I mean... if you buy it and flip it in a year for an extra $300 million or a cool billion, who cares if it's a bigger fool theory in effect.

You, when you're the bigger fool.

> there is always going to be someone else further down the road willing to buy into the story

Until there isn't and the Ponzi scheme collapse.

1) This is all rumors at this point

2) Their revenues increased and the losses stayed the same. Isn't that a path? They also mention a lot of the costs are S&M. If you stop growing that can be drastically cut.

The fundamental question is are they a software company, where those expenses were about building out a proprietary product which they can then distribute across the planet at minimal cost, or are they an army of consultants that you can hire for data solutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com