[swyman]

I have a really hard time putting much stock in metaphors that have so many components and work backwards from the metaphor to the real world. Too easy for the truth and usefulness of the advice to get stretched out to make the comment as a whole flow properly.

Uber/Airbnb/et al aren't still private just because there's some uncomfortable risk they're afraid will push away public investors. There's a whole host of reasons to stay private (lawyers, executive time/energy, SEC compliance, public investors are generally more myopic than private ones, etc, etc, etc). The "nut" you mention might be an inconvenience, but it's surely not even close to the most important reason to stay private.

[ChuckMcM]

I certainly agree that reasoning by analogy can only go so far in conveying the complexity of the situation. Startups do not exist in a vacuum.

That said, while I agree with you that there are lots of reasons a perfectly functioning, operationally cash flow positive company might choose to stay private. None of those reasons apply to companies that are diluting themselves with additional investment in order to stay in business.

The money gets more and more expensive from investors, and more and more people get screwed, and then all that's left is to write the amazing journey blog entry.

[droopyEyelids]

Wait. What? Uber and AirBnB are _the_ examples of companies with an uncomfortable skeleton in their closet!

Aren't they both founded on the principle of flounting the law?!

[afarrell]

Yes, but that is no secret, so how is it a skeleton?

[droopyEyelids]

It's a material risk to investors?