Very interesting, but it really makes me wonder.<p>If Twitter is making money, why dilute the shares with investment like this?<p>I'm sure one response is 'so they can grow the company', but that seems like a bit of a hard sell at this point.<p>How big does a company like Twitter really need to grow in order to be successful enough that they don't need to take $300 million investment deals? I mean, they are already the #1 provider of 140 character communication.<p>What is next?
I find it interesting that a government which allegedly funds terrorism [1] also funds a company which is supposed to be the shining beacon of transparency and a tool which has been crucial to the Arab Spring movements.<p>Wonder how much of an influence this will have on Twitter's self-censorship.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables...</a>
To those wondering if this is a secondary purchase, the keyword I see here is 'Invests'. It is very different from "Saudi Prince <i>buys</i> $300m worth of Twitter shares".
FYI this is a secondary purchase (ie it was not an investment in twitter directly, but rather he purchased shares from other investors):
<a href="http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/19/saudi-prince-deal-for-twitter-is-a-secondary/" rel="nofollow">http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/19/saudi-prince-deal-...</a>
Smart investment. Twitter has really changed news and personal broadcasting in ways many of us don't appreciate. And Twitter has some of the smartest people dispersing pearls of wisdom and knowledge like nowhere else.<p>Again, Twitter is a smart investment - in more ways than just money.