It was $500 million total including $100m in cash -- http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/twitter-rejects-500-mill...

$100 million in cash? Passing that up looks pretty dumb right now.

I guess running the company is more fun than doing whatever you want everyday for the rest of your life.

edit:the alley insider article implies that the deal was ALL facebook stock. I would probably turn that down too and wait for a non toilet-paper offer. I mean how much can you sell facebook stock for? Are there any buyers?

Actually that article has an update from thedeal.com saying that $100 million of the offer was cash. It's right at the top.

Evan Williams already sold Blogger to Google pre-IPO, so I don't blame him for seeing how big he can make Twitter now that he has breathing room.

You normally don't create another startup after becoming wealthy just to become more wealthy.

You'd be surprised, because thats exactly what serial entrepreneurs do.

There's a difference, though, between doing it just for the money and doing it for the love of the game which could also lead to more money.

How does that look dumb if they're raising at a $250m valuation? Seems smart to me.

That article made it seem like it was about $150m (at the more sane $5b Facebook valuation) stock only. I wouldn't take that if I owned Twitter.

Surely a valuation is meaningless until you are able to actually have a liquidity event.

If it was me, I'd recognize that the Twitter hype is probably peaking about now, and it's a good time to quit and take some cash.

it always looks like it's peaking if your growth is hyperbolic. whether or not they're idiots or geniuses is determined by the market.

but if I was running twitter I would certainly take $150 million in cash. If you still want to run a company well now you have cash and a success under your belt. Funding should be an order of magnitude easier.

"it always looks like it's peaking if your growth is hyperbolic."

Sure, but the fact we're even discussing $250m valuation for a company whos only real worth seems to be its users and possible future profit, should be a good pointer that this is a peak. Much like Facebook peaked.

Twitter's founders have already had a prior success. Funding is already easy for them.

And if you would sell a company with that sort of traffic and growth for $150m, then I'm glad I'm not invested in it.

a. It's a rumor.

b. Even as a rumor, the deal isn't closed.

c. The article mentions that they got a lot of "no"'s from people. If someone said "yes" it's likely the terms are going to be harsh.