Talk:Letgo

New Draft

I've done a re-draft of the published stub. As I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant to letgo, this suggested re-draft must be independently reviewed and approved. I am happy to work with anyone who would like to be of assistance. BC1278 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)BC1278

An entire draft article should be in a subpage not here

letgo Type of business Private Type of site Online Classifieds Available in English, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian, Swedish, Turkish Founded January 2015 (2015-01) Headquarters New York City and Barcelona Founder(s) Alec Oxenford Jordi Castello Enrique Linares Industry Marketplace, App Employees 90 URL letgo.com Current status Active Letgo is a used-goods mobile app marketplace that raised US$100 million in 2015, one of the five largest first rounds of venture capital financing since 2008. Following a merger in May 2016 with Wallapop, a competitor with a reported valuation of about $570 million, the company raised an additional $100 million. Product The letgo mobile app, offered for iOS and Android, facilitates buying and selling used goods. The marketplace, optimized for smartphones, features large photos of products for sale. No log in is required. Goods are displayed based on the geo-location closest to the buyer to make person to person transactions more likely. The app is integrated with instant chat to facilitate communication between buyers and sellers. History Launched in January 2015 by Alec Oxenford, former CEO of OLX, the largest online peer-to-peer used goods marketplace outside of the United States, along with Jordi Castello and Enrique Linares, the app initially targeted the U.S. market, competing against eBay and Craigslist, the online marketplace leaders since the 1990s. By September 2015, the company said its app had 2 million downloads and half a million product listings. Three quarters of the first round investment of $100 million was slated for marketing. The ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky Miami created a television ad campaign for the app, directed by filmmaker Craig Gillespie. Each advertisement is premised on an extreme situation, such as a person dangling over a cliff who might plunge down because he's holding on to a bowling ball, where the sensible thing to do is to let go of the item. CP+B Miami also created a series of four ads allowing customers to incorporate images and descriptions of their items for sale directly into a satirical video ad, such as one featuring action film start Dolph Lundgren as a mercenary. In May 2016, Letgo merged with Wallapop, another mobile classifieds startup. Letgo remained the majority owner of the company and the brand remained letgo. At the time, there were about 10 million monthly active users between the two apps, according to SurveyMonkey data published by TechCrunch. The company said in August 2016 that there were 30 million downloads of the app. About 17.4 million people used the app monthly, according to research firm Apptopia. Letgo launched in Canada in October 2016 and in Norway of November 2016. References

 Comment: Hi @BC1278: Sorry for the delay in reviewing the article. Before merging the draft into the main namespace, please take a look at the following recommendations:

• The first sentence should not contain information regarding funding, most readers do not care about that information. It would fit better under the History section.
• Optional: An app screenshot would help get across information that cannot be served by text alone

Daylen (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Daylen:. Appreciate the review. Here's the funding paragraph for the History section instead, as per your suggestion. It would seem to make sense as the new paragraph two? I will take an app screen image, too, and add it.

Letgo raised US$100 million in 2015, one of the five largest first rounds of venture capital financing since 2008. Following a merger in May 2016 with Wallapop, a competitor with a reported valuation of about $570 million, the company raised an additional $100 million. BC1278 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Hey again @Daylen:. I add the app screen, and I'm going to go ahead and add the paragraph with funding since you've already said it should go in the history section. If you think I've made an error, then please let me know, of course. Thanks, BC1278 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Sounds good, BC1278. Daylen (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Updates to letgo

Hi,

Im an experienced Wikipedia editor and a paid consultant to Letgo. As per WP: COI policy, I'd like to request the following updates to the article be reviewed and made by an independent editor:

1) In the infobox, the HQ is listed as New York and Mexico City, without a citation. The HQ is actually New York and Barcelona. It has no office in Mexico City. This TechCrunch article states New York is the HQ. And this article lists Barcelona as a base for Letgo:

2) More recent metrics for end of History section, updating older stats in the article:

• The company valuation is more than $1 billion, as of September 2017, with a total capital raised at about $375 million.

• As of January 2018, the Letgo app had about 75 million downloads. It had 200 million listings for secondhand goods. About 3 billion messages were exchanged between users. The company said it had monthly repeat visitors in the "tens of millions."

• Letgo was the second fastest-growing app in the United States, according to a comScore report in September 2017.

Thanks,

References

Ed

BC1278 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Saw your comment, happy to help! ReginaldTQ (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done @BC1278: I made some minor edits to the proposed content so it fits in with the existing content, but the edit request has been fulfilled in its entirety. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Add photo to product section

Hi,

I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor but I have a WP:COI, as disclosed above.

There was previously an image to illustrate the Products section and it was removed because of a permissions issue. here

Here is a replacement image for your consideration:

Letgo feed

Thanks for your help.

Best,

Ed BC1278 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Reply 25-SEP-2018

  Image request implemented  

1. Image was approved by ticket #2018050710014368 on September 20.
2. The image was placed in the article's Product section, where its display ratio was resized to omit the large magenta-colored windowboxing.
   

 Spintendo  07:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

advert

This is a business.

The page about it in WP (i will not call it a WP article) fails to describe the fundamentals of the business.

• How does it make money.
• Does it make money or lose money.

it does have all the typical hype about raises and valuations and advertisements.

Nothing about the business.

Hence the advert tag. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I have an update proposal coming shortly that will answer these questions and more. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Ok. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edits

@Jytdog: Responded to your request above, along with other requested updates.

I am an experience Wikipedia editor but I have a COI here as paid consultant to letgo, as disclosed above. I would be very appreciative of an independent review of the following suggested edits:

1. Insert to History (at request of editor in section above).

After "Letgo was the second fastest growing app..."

"From its launch, the company did not charge for its services, earning no revenue, as part of its strategy to grow quickly. As of June 2018, the listing service remained free, but the app added a paid beta feature allowing users to place their sales item above organic search results."

2. Expand this sentence so it includes the name of the funder and includes a second source with details of the investment, not just a one line mention. Also, fix reference to the existing source: "In August 2018, Letgo raised $500 million.

New sentence: "In August 2018, the company raised $500 million from Naspers." The company is one of several in 2018 that raised so-called "mega-rounds" of $200 million or more, a trend that emphasizes scaling up to have a large user bases before becoming profitable. An analyst said the Naspers investment was made, in part, because the market for online classifieds is so huge. The market may generate $40-50 billion in revenues by 2020, according to a 2015 Goldman Sachs report, with profit margins that can exceed 50%. The large size of the latest $500 million investment is reflective of how capital intensive it is to compete with the entrenched online classifieds' market leader in the United States, Craigslist, according to the analyst.

3. Insert after $500 million raise sentence:

"At the same time, the company reported the app has more than 100 million downloads and 400 million listings to date. Listings were up about 65% during the first eight months of 2018.

4. Add to end of Product section:

"In 2018, the company added video listings and image recognition that includes pricing suggestions.

5. Request: Remove flagged box on top of page.

After the business model questions are added, as requested above, the two specific objections that led to the placement of the box by this editor have been answered.

Thanks for your consideration.

References

-- BC1278 (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Thanks for adding the business model. So this is a lot like the Beepi situation, where the content you are proposing is all about the money raises and valuations and hype. Which is basically promotional but also kind of boring and must be for you as well. This tech crunch piece and this piece focused on Naspers but including some good discussion of this segment, could be used to develop more informative and more nuanced content that people could learn from. What do you think? We should be aiming for Harvard Business Review with discussion of challenges, strategy, and market dynamics, not this kind of recitation of investments and valuations. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Thanks for the suggestions. I added context and summarized some analysis from the interesting source you found. See revised language above in #2. I've tried this sort of thing before (not on this article) and have been dinged during review for COATRACK. I think what I suggest above is within bounds, though. Speaking outside of this article's bounds, here's my perspective on why a company like Letgo is of interest. VCs look for a few things before investing large sums of money. Entrepreneurs who they think are talented; very fast user adoption of the product or service; and a huge market. When they see all of these, which is quite rare, they start to shovel money in, allowing the start-up to try to dominate the market. Profit is not a concern for the first years -- it limits growth. Three of the five most valuable American companies in the world (I think this is accurate as of the moment) started this way -- Google, Facebook and Amazon. They all operated at huge losses for many years while they scaled up. The first two didn't even have a business model for several years. Once a company dominates a market, massive profits can follow. Other examples like this include Twitter, Snap, Skype. No revenue until they had many tens of millions of users. Uber lost billions of dollars annually until 2018, loses supported by private equity investors anxious to fund their domination. The payoffs to the VCs can be many billions of dollars -- 50x or even 100x their investments if they came in early. These enormous successes more than make up for their many failures, like Beepi. On the other hand, billions of dollars invested doesn't guarantee success. In the case at hand, in Letgo, there is an experienced entrepreneur who was previously the co-founder and CEO of OLX, which dominates the classified space in a many big developing markets like Brazil and India; the first iterations of the Letgo mobile app did indeed grow a user base explosively fast, verifying the business thesis about the potential for mobile classifieds; and the market in classifieds is enormous. So the company ticks all the boxes VCs look for, which is why a company with no revenue can raise these huge sums. I find it interesting whether or not the companies that raise these huge amounts of money ultimately succeed or fail. MySpace was interesting. Pets.com was interesting. Both big failures, eventually. Well-worth Wikipedia entries. And it's great that the summation of events happens as things progress, instead of waiting until the story is entirely told. Very helpful to those who want to learn about business, the economy and technology. It's a really tiny group of companies that can raise these mega-rounds of financing, compared to the one million American businesses that grow in a more traditional way. Interestingly, the "mega-rounds" keep getting bigger and bigger for the select few. I'll add a a sentence about this, as it's useful context.BC1278 (talk)BC1278

Yep I fully get the model in tech- same thing has been going on since the first internet bubble (and I get it that things are different now that many of the computing barriers that killed the first wave like pets.com are gone). None of that means that a) there is an actual market or b) that people can make money addressing it with a tech solution. Used cars are a case in point; not solved yet. On, twitter, its first profitable quarter was only this year, and i am not sure the company is net profitable yet.

And valuations of private rounds are such an interesting thing, right? Always leaked. And problematic when you have a major investor returning round after round, retaining a controlling interest, in this case itself a public traded company that needs to keep its own stockholders happy.

The added content adds some useful context and I appreciate you adding that. Nothing about the challenge of beating craigslist. Hm. I will look at it later and will probably change it some. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User: Jytdog As per your comment re: craigslist, I changed the wording of "2" proposal above as follows: "The large size of the latest $500 million investment is reflective of how capital intensive it is to compete with the entrenched online classifieds' market leader in the United States, Craigslist, according to the analyst." Re: valuation comment, there's no mention of it in this round of proposed edits, even though it was reported by the press. Thanks for your review.BC1278 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)BC1278

User: Jytdog Just pinging you to see if you have further thoughts and/or if you'd like someone else to implement the edits. Thanks. BC1278 (talk)BC1278

A response has not yet been received for this question.

Reply 14-NOV-2018

  Request closed for inactivity  

• The above edit request has not received any non-COI editor responses in the past 3 weeks (21 days total). Thus, the request template has been closed as answered.
• The COI editor is urged to revive any stalled communications with involved editors first by making contact with those editor's through their own talk pages, then by moving the discussion to this talk page.
• The COI editor may also wish to broadcast requests for changes at the talk pages of the various WikiProjects which govern this article. Those projects are normally listed at the top of each article's talk page.
• Unless being assisted by another review editor, the COI editor is asked to allow for a reasonable amount of time to pass before reactivating a subsequent {{edit request}} on the same issue.

Regards,  Spintendo  14:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As per suggestions, posted request to Talk page of editor previously involved in discussion and posted request on Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Apps Thanks!BC1278 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Reactivating Edit Request

Hi, I followed the steps outline above for finding an editor to review prior to re-activating edit request and nothing has materialized since Nov. 12, following a previous waiting period of 21 days. So I am reactivating.

I am an experience Wikipedia editor but I have a COI here as paid consultant to letgo, as disclosed above. I would be very appreciative of an independent review of the following suggested edits:

1. Insert to History (at request of editor in section above), after "Letgo was the second fastest growing app...":

"From its launch, the company did not charge for its services, earning no revenue, as part of its strategy to grow quickly. As of June 2018, the listing service remained free, but the app added a paid beta feature allowing users to place their sales item above organic search results."

2. Expand the following sentence so it includes the name of the funder and includes a second source with details of the investment, not just a one line mention (also fixes reference to the existing source):

Delete: "In August 2018, Letgo raised $500 million.

New sentence: "In August 2018, the company raised $500 million from Naspers." The company is one of several in 2018 that raised so-called "mega-rounds" of $200 million or more, a trend that emphasizes scaling up to have a large user bases before becoming profitable. An analyst said the Naspers investment was made, in part, because the market for online classifieds is so huge. The market may generate $40-50 billion in revenues by 2020, according to a 2015 Goldman Sachs report, with profit margins that can exceed 50%. The large size of the latest $500 million investment is reflective of how capital intensive it is to compete with the entrenched online classifieds' market leader in the United States, Craigslist, according to the analyst. 3. Insert after $500 million raise sentence:

"At the same time, the company reported the app has more than 100 million downloads and 400 million listings to date. Listings were up about 65% during the first eight months of 2018.

4. Add to end of Product section:

"In 2018, the company added video listings and image recognition that includes pricing suggestions.

5. Remove flagged box on top of page.

After the business model questions are added, as requested above, the two specific objections that led to the placement of the box by this editor have been answered.

Thanks for your consideration. BC1278 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

User: Spintendo -- I could request review from editors within a project, instead of just posting a message to the "app" project Talk page. That would be more effective in finding a reviewer, I'm sure. But it's not exactly what you suggested, above, so I'm asking for clarification. I've also seen suggestions in the past about generating Talk discussion by contacting editors who had previously worked on an article, or who were working on related articles. I can't seem to find any formal policy statement.BC1278 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

The Apps WikiProject would be an excellent avenue to take in getting the request reviewed.  Spintendo  13:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

===comment===:

1. seems ok
2. As jytdog -- and you-- said earlier, this business model, however interesting, is not unique to the company but representative of the whole sector. You should therefore make sure it is properly and fully discussed in some general WP article, and then you can link to it. It does not belong here any more than with any other company in the sector.
3. I would try to incorporate this and the earlier results in a subsection on growth. and similarly for the funding, rathe than going chronologically year by year through both together. I think it's clearer that way. Twenty years from now, when if all goes well there will be a much longer span of results, a table can work well, and by then we will most likely have a way of updating it automatically throu h Wikidata.
4. seems ok--the key thing for the reader is to see clearly what is the difference for this particular app, in contrast to all the others with similar function.
5. there's a general WP problem here: a meaningful article for a firm like this is essentially similar to at least some of the purposes of an advertisement. I do not see how to avoid this. Telling people what something is meant to do inherently advertises it. So its mmore a question of prose. I think the best thing to do is to make the changes in the best way you can, and then ask again about the tag. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Comment

User:DGG and others. Here are my suggested changes as per your suggestions. For the others, that you said were ok, are you saying I should make these directly on the article? I think that's allowed, so long as the reviewing editor approves it. There hasn't been any substantive discussion related to the prior proposals for about 46 days, as of Dec. 7, 2018.

1. Move the following to a new sub-section called "Growth":

By September 2015, the company said its app had 2 million downloads and half a million product listings.[4]. Comscore said it was the second fastest growing app in the U.S., in 2017. As of January 2018, the Letgo app had about 75 million downloads, compared to 30 million in August 2016.[17] Additionally, it had 200 million listings for secondhand goods and about 3 billion messages were exchanged between users.[16] The company said it had monthly repeat visitors in the "tens of millions."[16] In August, 2018, when they raised $500 million, the company reported the app had more than 100 million downloads and 400 million. Listings were up about 65% during the first eight months of 2018.

2. Move the following to a new sub-section called "Funding":

Letgo raised US$100 million in 2015,[4] one of the five largest first rounds of venture capital financing since 2008.[8] Following a merger in May 2016 with Wallapop, a competitor with a reported valuation of about $570 million, the company raised an additional $100 million.[9] The company valuation was more than $1 billion, as of September 2017, making Letgo a unicorn company in startup terminology. By that time, Letgo has also raised $375 million in total capital.[14] In August 2018, the company raised $500 million from Naspers.

References

BC1278 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Make the changes, and let me know and I will edit further if I think necessary . Leaving the reviewer to do the integration makes it too time consuming, at least for the way I work. (But when you do integrate, please replace the company name with "the company" pr the equivalent about half the time. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DGG, I've made the changes directly on the article, as requested. Could you review and let me know whether it's OK now to remove the "advertising" flag? The specific reason Jytdog said in Talk he placed the flag was because it did not describe the business model and whether/how the company earned revenue -- these have now been addressed. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

I removed one remaining duplication and tightened it a little. I leave the question of the emephasis on the ad campaign for someone else; I've done as much as I plan to. and, BC1278, it's been pleasant to work with someone who follows suggestions. It's not all the common around here. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Reconsideration of "Advertisement" flag

Hi,

An advertising tag was placed on top of this article by User:Jytdog because, as he explains at Talk:Letgo#advert, he felt the article lacked specific information about how it made money and whether it lost or made money. I responded to his requests with updated language that directly answered his questions. I also responded to another series of requests by DGG for a restructuring of the article and other improvements. Unfortunately, Jytdog's account is currently blocked Special:Contributions/Jytdog, so he can't respond to requests to remove the tag now that his questions have been directly answered. DGG seems not to remove advert tags on any company pages for his own philosophical take about inherent COI with any company article (he explains this in Talk) - but as you can see from the previous Talk entry, he was very satisfied with my work honoring his requests.

I'd request the tag be removed since I have satisfied the requests of these two very stringent editors. Happy to do even more work if the reviewing editor sees any remaining issues.

ThanksBC1278 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Reply 02-JAN-2019

   Clarification needed  

• Please provide the diffs of your requests made to other editors regarding the template's removal, as well as the diffs of any changes made in response to an editor's concerns communicated to you regarding the template's removal.
• When ready to proceed, kindly change the answer parameter from yes to no.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes

All specific requests regarding the template removal were made on this Talk page. Talk:Letgo#Proposed_edits and Talk:Letgo#Reactivating_Edit_Request I sent Jytdog a general request on his user Talk telling him I had made the changes he requested, but I did not address the template specifically: User_talk:Jytdog/Archive_28#Letgo. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

There's a general WP problem here: a meaningful article for a firm like this is essentially similar to at least some of the purposes of an advertisement. I do not see how to avoid this. Telling people what something is meant to do inherently advertises it. So its more a question of prose. I think the best thing to do is to make the changes in the best way you can, and then ask again about the tag.
— User:DGG

Other than kicking the maintenance template can down the road, I don't see how meaningful changes were requested of the COI editor, other than from the prose. That makes it difficult to decide whether or not those requests have been met by the COI editor's proposals.  Spintendo  00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that most of the contention came from the Growth section. It's unclear where the contention lay. With (a) the original editor who placed the template concluding their involvement with this particular issue and (b) the other editor no longer with us, and (c) the COI editor reluctant to point out (for a second time) the evidence of their proposals, I've decided to start from scratch by omitting the problematic paragraph and the maintenance template both at once. Now we can start anew, by crafting new language for that information. Feel free to begin any new requests to add or change info at your earliest convenience.  Spintendo  00:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A small correction. The original tag was placed by Jytdog, not DGG. [1] And the reasoning made by Jytdog were very specific and described by him in Talk. Talk:Letgo#advert Issues since addressed. Thanks very much. BC1278 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Yes but it was DGG's comments which were mentioned here by you:

DGG seems not to remove advert tags on any company pages for his own philosophical take about inherent COI with any company article (he explains this in Talk)
— User:BC1278

If by "Talk" the COI editor means DGG's talk page, then a diff of this would have been nice. I don't see this comment on DGG's talk page or Letgo's talk page, so I dont know where BC1278 is getting this from. Mentioning the reason for keeping it as being due to an editor's "philosophical take" strongly implies that the continuing display of it were meant as some sort of reckoning, which would not be correct in my book, as maintenance templates are not meant to be badges of shame. Not having access to the direct comment (as I have asked for) makes this comment from BC1278 very difficult to understand. I hope in the future that BC1278 is more clear regarding what they say has been said to them by providing diffs of these conversations when they are not immediately available to whomeever they are speaking with. Thank you!  Spintendo  01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Spintendo I'm referring just to DGG's Talk comments on this page: "there's a general WP problem here: a meaningful article for a firm like this is essentially similar to at least some of the purposes of an advertisement. I do not see how to avoid this. Telling people what something is meant to do inherently advertises it." That's what I mean when I said, "philosophical take." I think DGG's non-engagement with the ultimate decision on the advert tag, while otherwise being very supportive of improving the article, is an indication of the inherent contradiction he sees. I recall he has made similar comments about this topic on the Talk page of other articles -- sorry I haven't dug them up as it would be a bunch of work (I don't recall which articles and some of them may even have been deleted) and his views on the topic are well stated here. He has left the ad-tag template decision to others - he doesn't argue on one side or the other because of this inherent contradiction he sees. It's not a position without merit, although I don't think the ad tag template should be how it's resolved.BC1278 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)BC178

Request Edit

I have a COI as a paid consultant for LetGo, as disclosed above.

At the end of the current History section, please add: In September 2019, Naspers spun off its investments in Letgo and other internet companies into a new company, Prosus NV, which was listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

It is not known what is meant by the term spun off. Please clarify. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Also, the COI editor is reminded of the need to sign all posts using four tildes. Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  22:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Revised:

"At the end of the current History section, please add: In September 2019, Naspers separated its investments in Letgo and other internet companies into a new company, Prosus NV, which was listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. " BC1278 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Further clarification requested:

• Please indicate the passage in the New York Times source which states either (a) that the monies previously invested in Letgo were transferred to Prosus, or (b) the amount of those monies.
• The Bloomberg source states "Oxenford’s OLX and Letgo are just two Naspers-owned internet ventures that will be carved out into a new $100 billion company called Prosus NV, which is due to list in Amsterdam on Sept. 11." This source also does not elaborate on the amount removed from Letgo. As this is the Letgo article, it would seem prudent to mention an amount (or a percent) so that the reader has a better understanding of how much of Letgo's assets were used to form Prosus.
• In the Bible's explanation of the creation of Eve, the narrative was keen to give the reader an approximation which they could use to discern how much of Adam was carved out to form his better half — that being one of his ribs. It would be nice if the Letgo article could provide at least as much illumination on that aspect.
• Of course this is not strictly required, but any information you can provide on it would be greatly appreciated. Again, please change the ans parameter to proceed. Regards,  Spintendo  05:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Update: This claim has been added to the article, but clarifying information regarding the issue above would be additionally welcomed. Regards,  Spintendo  06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

User: Spintendo. In the bottom third of The New York Times article about Prosus, a paragraph begins: "The company’s holdings are divided into three main areas: classified ad companies, including OLX and Letgo..." As to the value or the percentage, I have read quite a few articles and can't find it pinned down. This article [2] speculates: "Letgo, the USA/Spanish shopping app for second-hand products, received $500 million in funding commitment from Naspers at an undisclosed valuation last week. Founded in 2015, Letgo raised nearly $1 billion already, the majority of which from Naspers. Letgo’s ownership is separated between the USA and Europe, but it now seems likely Naspers’ effective overall ownership exceeds 50%, alongside venture firms like Insight, Accel, Northzone and many others." BC1278 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)