This makes some sense. We often rate social networking sites demand-side, by how much potential people see in them rather than how much they're actually worth. The fact that the still growing Groupon is worth over 6 times as much as the well established and influential Twitter is a perfect indication of this. Worth is still somewhat based on assets and popularity, and we shouldn't push the price of companies up by such huge factors simple because they ARE growing and haven't established a reliable estimation of worth yet. Startups are a venture market, where the real money is made before sudden explosions in popularity, but we shouldn't grossly over rate them just because they aren't already well established, and the explosion hasn't happened yet. Especially because if the explosion does happen, and the company is worth at or less than its estimated, demand-side, potential worth, nobody's making money anyway, because the stock price won't have increased much. In other industries its called poor evaluation to treat EVERY up and coming business like its going to explode, why should startups be so different? Because SOME people have made tons of money? If were all "chasing the american dream" in our investments and will settle for no less, than that's acceptable. But if were trying to invest intelligently, its unjustifiable that every up and coming startup is grossly over rated in price. Unless Groupon actually has around 22 billion dollars in assets, then they do not have a justifiable price. Otherwise, we need to listen to the Oracle of Omaha and wise up. Startups are still an industry, and we need to get used to that to avoid bubbles like this. Maybe venture capital is so hard to break into because you ACTUALLY need to look for companies that aren't popular yet, rather than just decide to invest in the companies you use every day. The strong investments are made before the company is well known, not before it has an accurate price.