We didn't write "stripe's metrics today are X." We wrote, "Stripe's metrics 6 months ago, when they were in fundraising and M&A talks were X...during the same period its competitors metrics were Y, Z." Seems fair and accurate.
Stripe doesn't need to share data if it doesn't want, but then criticizing us for being inaccurate is a bit ridiculous.
Also, it's not our job to tell Stripe's (or any company's) story as they want it told. It's to report on the ecosystem. Its better for the ecosystem – investors, competitors, customers, etc. – if they share transparent numbers.
As I wrote to Patrick above, they've been fundraising and having M&A talks over the last 6+ mo, meaning their numbers are "out there." The figures we reported may be outdated, something that we acknowledged, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that they're wildly inaccurate for the timeframe.
Hey Patrick, we'd be happy to include any numbers that you share publicly. We gave you that opportunity yesterday, but you declined. You guys have been fundraising and having M&A talks over the last 6+ mo, meaning your numbers are "out there." I find it hard to believe that everyone we spoke to is grossly inaccurate in the exact same ballpark. I'm happy to concede that the figures may be outdated, and we acknowledged that in the article. But we also compared you guys against competitors' metrics from the same period. Our goal is to be fair and accurate. The more you share, obviously, the better.
Agreed that Braintree had a head start and that's not to be overlooked. Also, landing Twitter would be a big coup, and potentially lucrative depending on what kind of commerce they enable. But I'd dispute the claim that they're growing at a ridiculous rate. Everything we've heard puts it close to 50%/yr, which is not great given their size and valuation. Braintree was above 100% last year, Square grew 200%, and even PayPal grew 30%.
Sama, you may have missed it in your "quick skim" but Stripe isn't actually growing that fast (~50% / yr). Braintree is growing much faster and even stodgy old paypal isn't too far behind in terms of growth rate. For its size and valuation, the growth story is fairly underwhelming.
As for the trackrecord and judgement of the investors, no argument that they are among the best. But only Khosla is new money, meaning they are the only one that took significant new risk (although they got plenty of downside protection via liquidation preferences, as we explained). Sequoia and Founders Fund were already heavily invested in Stripe, thus making it a much easier decision to "re-up" in this new round and pad the company's war chest for the highly-competitive slugfest ahead.
I/we don't hate Stripe. In fact, I think they're a great company. I just think the narrative around this funding round when it was announced on Wednesday glossed over the legitimate challenges that the company faces.
Stripe doesn't need to share data if it doesn't want, but then criticizing us for being inaccurate is a bit ridiculous.
Also, it's not our job to tell Stripe's (or any company's) story as they want it told. It's to report on the ecosystem. Its better for the ecosystem – investors, competitors, customers, etc. – if they share transparent numbers.