Okay, I'm not in the Valley, but businesses are in business to do business - to make money for their shareholders. Arguing against that as a reasonable motivation is disingenuous. You can disagree with the business decision; that essentially amounts to "I think their expected value is >$170m and I'd take their risk profile". Fair enough. But if you're arguing it on any other basis than that, then you're substituting your morals for economics, and what's more, your morals for those of all the individual shareholders. Not cool.
Isn't it easiest to just assume that Facebook and Twitter haven't been bought because their equity holders think they make more money doing it their way? They've got a case too; as Twitter's paper valuation climbs past $1bn, the crew there get proved more and more correct.
Banker math surely proves Aaron would have to show real hubris to ignore Intuit's offer, but founders rightly run startups, not bankers. Intuit is a $9B twenty five year old company. Mint could have given them a run for their money. They took the payday instead.
Looks like a business opportunity then ...
Fair enough, judgement call. But what justifies it? 'Banker math'.
That said, Mint seems like the exception out here. Facebook and Twitter seem to be doing a great job keeping the champagne at bay.