One thing I saw in the comments:
> If they still have 30 million in the bank of the 55 million, why are they raising more money?
Answer: it's always easier to raise money when you don't need it.
> If they still have 30 million in the bank of the 55 million, why are they raising more money?
Answer: it's always easier to raise money when you don't need it.
Oi, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. What Twitter desperately need right now is a way to make money (and taking it from VC's don't count). If they want to justify a $1 BILLION valuation, they need a clear way to make a lot of money.
My prediction: they're looking to buy a company that they think will make them money. While one might hope Benchmark Capital might pass down some wisdom from AOL's botched "best acquisition EVAR" fiasco, I have a bad feeling about this. As it stands now, my feeling regarding their technical competence tells me the hypothetical merger will be tougher than anticipated, and history will see Twitter as the shining example of the "Web 2.0 bubble".
Facebook and Google, on the other hand, have been growing out of being useful to their users, with no comparable technical issues (I'm hoping the FriendFeed acquisition does some good things for Facebook's architecture).