As the internet shit its collective denim pants yesterday upon news of Snapchat's Facebook refusal, there were some outliers—very prominent outliers. You might think two 23-year-olds refusing three billion dollars is lunacy, but these tech insiders think you're the crazy one.
The Snapfrat boys aren't being reckless and insane—you're just a pussy. Soak in some Silicon Valley knowledge:
MG Siegler, former TechCrunch blogger and current Google investor:
I know nothing of Snapchat's roadmap, but it strikes me as foolish to make fun of them simply for turning down a lot of money.
— MG Siegler (@parislemon) November 13, 2013
Box CEO Aaron Levie, with some wisdom pulled from a promotional seminar at a Marriott:
No one rational would have turned down $3 billion for SnapChat. But, no one rational would have built SnapChat in the first place.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) November 13, 2013
The "if you think this is crazy, you just don't get it" line of reasoning is popular, too:
When Mark Zuckerberg turned down $1B from Yahoo, he was a maverick. So why all the scorn for Evan Spiegel? B/c you don't get Snapchat?
— David Lidsky (@davidlidsky) November 13, 2013
A hero! Big words from Peter Pham, whose startup "Color" was one of the most hilarious failures in recent history:
yup, @evanspiegel is my new LA Hero.. Going long, going big w/ Snapchat. If you get to spend time w/ him you'll see he's the real deal
— Peter Pham (@peterpham) November 13, 2013
Hollywood groupie Shervin Pishevar equates greed with bravery:
Snapchat has the courage to do what Instagram should have done. Good for them.
— Shervin Pishevar (@shervin) November 13, 2013
Dan Primack of Fortune wrote a whole article defending Snapchat, though admits he doesn't use the app himself:
Why Snapchat wasn't crazy to turn down Facebook http://t.co/vf5LRmP3wc
— danprimack (@danprimack) November 13, 2013
Well of course you don't think it's crazy, Bill Gurley, you're a Snapchat investor:
If you still don't understand Snapchat, take a look at this tweet from our government's FCC https://t.co/3qoX0AD2xe
— Bill Gurley (@bgurley) November 12, 2013
And this just doesn't really mean anything:
A reminder why Snapchat is worth $3B+. It’s a new behavior and there will be no 2nd place. http://t.co/Y8ChDdZ2sB
— Steve Cheney (@stevecheney) November 13, 2013
What do all these startup Panglosses have in common? With very few exceptions, they're investors, whose meaning on this planet is justified only if turning down $3 billion with the hopes of more billions is considered rational. If greed on this scale isn't bonkers, but a virtue, then the whole thing keeps lurching forward without pausing to reflect on why a company that makes nothing is worth anything at all.