Seriously? Getting VC funding isn't monetizing. That's not profit, it's an investment. I don't know if this needs to be spelled out, but generally when people make investments they expect the investment to be returned with additional profits on top. Or do you think the VCs are in the business of giving money away?
Breaking even on sponsored tweets is not a sustainable business model just because they got VC funding. If they can't start turning actual profits, that VC money will be pulled out faster than you can type a 140 character message about it.
I think jbigelow76 is talking about 'monetizing' for the founders and early investors with tongue in cheek, and the fact that twitter doesn't have an obvious income stream. Obviously this is not the intended outcome for the VCs.
1. Monetization does not equal profit. Plenty of businesses monetize at a net loss, they just aren't around long term.
2. How investments work does not need to be spelled out, but maybe sarcasm does ;)
3. How do you see VCs (that weren't liquidated out from subsequent rounds) "pulling out" money? Are they going to ask employees to return paychecks, reverse bill AWS or wherever their infrastructure costs are incurred? There maybe money in the bank for operating costs and runway but from the VC's perspective that money is effectively gone.
VC funding is not investing, its speculation. VC money gets burned way faster than it gets pulled out. And generally they aren't looking to earn "actual profits" in the sustainable long haul. Just to generate enough hype to increase valuation for subsequent rounds when they can take their gains by cashing out early on SecondMarket.
Breaking even on sponsored tweets is not a sustainable business model just because they got VC funding. If they can't start turning actual profits, that VC money will be pulled out faster than you can type a 140 character message about it.