Tinder has made 0 revenue since it's inception in 2012. That's not a company, that's a product. (a great product mind you)
> If tinder was private, its valuation would likely trump that of IAC.
IAC makes a lot of money ($3bil) and has a high market cap ($6bil). Given it's ownership of every large dating site, it's it conceivable that IAC has set the precedence for the total addressable market for online dating. Or at the very least, has an indication of such. I'm curious as to the rationale that would make Tinder worth more than IAC given that (1) Tinder hasn't made a single dime (2) the sites that do make money already have a large market share and continue to grow despite a free contender like Tinder existing and (3) a company "worth over a billion" needs to theoretically have a trajectory to not only bring in $150mil in revenue but exceed that in the foreseeable future in order for a billion dollar price tag to be realistic (on that same note - "billion dollar" valuations only make sense when their is a buyer who can foot that bill or the company has a trajectory to make those kind of profits. to my knowledge IAC would be the only company in existence to do such a thing).
Lastly, I'm genuinely curious about the history and terms setup between IAC and Tinder. If Tinder is such a darly of the tech world and is a "billion dollar business" then why did it chose to be so restricted by IAC when it's valuation "would likely trump that of IAC"? I curiously ask not because I have any sort of knowledge of their history, but rather the current arrangement suggests a story entirely different than the prescribed narrative that you suggest.