If there are two companies A and B, and you are convinced that A will yield a better ROI than B, you will sell B and buy A – even if there is room for B to yield a positive ROI.
Growth in users/usage/engagement in a social network almost always yields a better ROI than no/low/negative growth in users/usage/engagement.
Twitter does not necessarily have a monetization problem, people just want to invest their money where there is more potential.
From an investor perspective, prices in the stock market are basically meaningless.[1] As an investor you can purchases multiples or fractions of a stock which allows you to choose your price. Percent change in price is all that matters for your ROI.
e.x. A $1 increase on a $1 stock purchase yields a 100% increase, a $1 increase on a $100 stock price only yields a 1% increase. In this example, you should have purchased $100 worth of the $1 stock.
e.x. On the other hand, if have some $x less than $100, but you think the $100 stock is going to increase at a faster rate than the $1 stock, you should purchase x/100th of a share of the $100 stock.
[1] A stock's price is meaningful for two reasons. The sum of value of all shares defines the market capitalization for a company. Also, price can be used to exclude buyers in a socioeconomic way. This is rare, most companies will split the stock every so often to keep the price affordable. An example of an exclusionary stock is Berkshire A, which is currently priced around $180,000. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, as an investor, the only thing that matters is your expectation for the percent change in price.
? The whole company = the enterprise value of the company. Maybe you didn't understand what buying all of twitter meant. My point is if you bought twitter for $1 and with their XBN revenue, all you'd have to do to earn a 100% return on capital is make sure you get back a $2 after tax dividend. This illustrates why price matters in investing. But I'd suggest reading Seth Klarman and Buffett for further reading on the relationship between price and value.
Another way to think of it is, forget about speculating and expected price changes. Think about at what price you would be comfortable buying the whole company and taking it private and harvesting cash flows from it. At $1 for an XBN revenue company that's a no brainer. I'd earn a 1000% return in a year just by cutting some costs and making sure capital is allocated in a manner that generates a return.
Growth in users/usage/engagement in a social network almost always yields a better ROI than no/low/negative growth in users/usage/engagement.
Twitter does not necessarily have a monetization problem, people just want to invest their money where there is more potential.