Hey Dmitri -- I agree with you, the stats don't add up... But my own (completely external, third-party) study of the social dynamics of the usage of the app paint a different picture. I should note that I had written off the app myself until very recently, when this interesting trend started to kick off. Although I don't have access to any inside data, and the charts don't seem to show what's going on, I was one of the first 5 people on Path, and I have one of the only usernames on the service (n), so my account tends to feel the effects of usage patterns before they become macro-patterns. What I'm seeing doesn't paint a picture of a dead network, just one that doesn't seem to have any usage in any Western countries.

Once again, I'll note that this is different from what I saw 18 months ago. If you had talked to me at that time, I would have said Dave was screwed. And if he wastes his time focusing in the Western market (such as is evidenced by screenshots of users based in San Francisco), it might still be the case. Path is no longer a Western network, and that's totally okay -- it was never a Western network anyway. I didn't even use the product during the whole spam debacle, which I would blame on Dave's poor judgement in hiring douchey employees in decision-making roles (I think there's a Mother Jones article somewhere that might allude to what I'm talking about). I'm guessing a lot of the new users of Path didn't even know about the app during that time (again, keep in mind that the demographic waves for smartphone usage mean that there are entirely new groups of users who have zero knowledge of what went on a few years ago).

Edit: Also, there is nothing non-meritocratic about Path/Dave raising money. He was in the game when most of you thought it was a joke. And unlike a lot of people who have made money, he actually did something for it. If you're bitter about this, the issues are your own.