- Jul 10, 2017
- Reaction score
30 million do have a much smaller risk attached than 5.7 billion though. And yahoo never knew what they were doing. IIRC they killed the value of nearly anything they bought. And I think the people leading a Blockchain company are not clueless about the internet. Same was the case for yahoo too probably though.For everyone who wants to talk about how this company surely knows what they are doing, I suggest you learn your internet history.
In 1998, AudioNet was renamed to Broadcast.com and in July 1998, the company became a public company via an initial public offering. The stock price soared 250% on its first day of trading, a record for a newly issued public stock. After the IPO, the company was worth $1 billion, Mark Cuban was worth $300 million, and Todd Wagner was worth $170 million.
On April 1, 1999, less than 9 months after the IPO, Yahoo! announced the acquisition of broadcast.com for $5.7 billion in stock.
Yahoo shut down much of its broadcast services in 2002 and broadcast.com has since been discontinued. Yahoo's high-profile purchase of broadcast.com has since been called one of the worst internet acquisitions.
It's the stuff of legends. It's how Mark Cuban became a billionaire. It shows that some companies have no clue about the internet. Of course that was a different time, but it's still mostly out of touch people in charge of these billion dollar companies.
Exactly. 30 million for a domain is very much. Even at a valuation of 2 billion. Apple, for example, has acquired at least 6 companies for 30 million or less in the past 4 or 5 years (most prices are not disclosed so number might be much higher). They must be highly confident on the success of their app (and the dependence of this app on a great name) if they believe this domain alone is worth more than some companies that Apple considered useful.A valuation of $2 billion is great, but $30 million of $2 billion is 1.5%. 1.5% of the total company valuation was spent on a domain name. Not a full marketing plan, a domain name. And a $2 billion valuation in no way means they have anything close to $30 million in cash at the ready. That was a massive expense on a domain name. They must be hedging very hard on their social app.
Unluckily this is also valid for your analogy.I dont think it works that way but okey.
A social media network where "your voice can be heard" like facebook but more transparent.
Or a YouTube where they don't deplatform you for having an opinion, or for preaching truth. One which somehow earns crypto rather than relying on ad revenue to fund it, that way they don't need to worry about advertisers telling them what to do. I think it could work if they promote it the right way. And now that I think about it, it's a good domain for that sort of thing, a Facebook/YouTube mash up.