What are you basing this off exactly? The only case where failing to hit valuation targets can kill a company, is when the company is reliant on continued funding to operate. A profitable company is free to disappoint it's investors in any way it chooses.
I didn't, actually. Note the usernames. My reply was regarding the more blanket statement of
>A profitable company is free to disappoint it's investors in any way it chooses.
Also, it's not too unreasonable to assume that a controlling stake was obtained considering that the article said "[this is] a gigantic Series A even by today’s standards", and "The company declined to provide its valuation". Elsewhere in the comments someone mentioned that almost 2/3rds of the money was a "cash-out", rather than an investment to the company. Both statements suggest that a large stake was acquired.
I see, so the discussion has simply devolved into pointless generalities.
I don’t see any sources claiming the company has been acquired (other HN comments don’t count), even if it was I haven’t seen any evidence that the investors are interested in undermining the sustainability of the business model.
All of the doom and gloom comments in this thread are completely unsubstantiated, and seem to be mostly based on misunderstandings of how businesses actually operate. A company reliant on funding to operate needs to be very concerned with its valuation, a profitable company doesn’t to be to anywhere near the same level. Comments that amount to nothing more than “VC bad” should probably not get a free pass in a community supposedly devoted to “gratif[ying] one's intellectual curiosity”.
What are you basing this off exactly? The only case where failing to hit valuation targets can kill a company, is when the company is reliant on continued funding to operate. A profitable company is free to disappoint it's investors in any way it chooses.