> I don't understand how the existence of [any company ever] adds over [their current valuation] of utility to the economy; furthermore, if [company] fell of the face of the earth, everyone would just switch to [their competitor], and life would resume ut fit. Peter Thiel's quote should be updated: We wanted flying cars, instead we got 1̶4̶0̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶s [trivialization of product's value].

These comments surface every time a company goes public. You may have some valuable information driving this viewpoint underneath, but from this comment it just sounds like useless trolling.

To me at least, Snap seems like a good company with cultish user-base. They have done a good job integrating ads and rich content (some paid content) into their core UX. A difficult feat which Twitter still hasn't solved to this day. They also have an interesting perspective on live events that even FB/Instagram has failed to replicate.

I had removed the last part from the comment as to seem less trollish, so please forgive me for coming across as such. Anyway, since you asked, here is my formalized argument: (1) [falsifiable axiom] You cannot have meaningful economic growth without technological innovation. Technological innovation is improving the efficiency of existing resources or increasing the availability of resources as compared to previous eras (colloquially, "doing more with less"). (2) [falsifiable axiom] Historically, only the most valuable companies of a given era are technologically innovative. (3) [falsifiable axiom] Under the current valuation, Snap Inc. is currently one of the most valuable companies. (4) [falsifiable axiom] Snap Inc. is not technologically innovative. (5) [logical conclusion given axioms] Snap Inc. should not be valued as one of the most valuable companies of this era.

Kids like it. Shouldn't that count for something? You might as well question why video games, or professional sports, or Hollywood, or any other form of commercial entertainment generates so much money.

Haha, that's exactly my point! I do question why the entertainment industry siphons so much capital away from other, more productive endeavors. Perhaps no one has any good ideas on how to create the future, so we might as well throw it all at beer and sports.

Furthermore, your comment is no defense of Snap Inc's valuation, either. In my humble opinion, "integrating ads and rich content into their core UX" and "an interesting perspective on live events" are not strong arguments for why a company should be worth $30B.

Personally, I wouldn't put too much "trust" in the market cap number. A lot of times at this stage, the investing is rather speculative. We will find out what the market really thinks in a few months.

I imagine people are probably buying the stock in the hopes that this is the next Facebook (which is now roughly 4x the initial day end trade price). There's also, however, the possibility that this might be the next Groupon IPO equivalent (initial market cap at the close: 16.5 billion; current market cap: 2.34 billion, about 20% of the initial opening day price). We'll see.