(I don’t have time to summarize but this is a copy of a email I sent to a investor activist fund\[all of these ideas are 100% authentic, yes I used a LLM to polish it but if u ai check it it’s 60% my own writing so if u have an issue reading original ideas polished by LLM then move along lmao)\]
Dear x,
I came across x through FactSet while reviewing SNAP’s ownership profile and subsequently spent time going through your materials on SaveSnapNow.com. In the interest of respecting your time, I’d suggest skipping directly to point **3** in this note, where I’ve highlighted what I believe is genuinely incremental, DAU‑based monetization information that may not yet be fully reflected in public data. If you want to reach out, my personal information is provided at the end of this email.
I am fully aligned with your view that Spectacles should be spun or shut; it is an economically unjustifiable allocation of R&D against SNAP’s core asset. The planned H2 2026 sale provides a natural inflection point to eliminate ongoing Specs-related opex and capex and treat this period as a grace window to reset the cost base. My expectation is that, by 2027, management will have the discipline to acknowledge that Specs is structurally value-destructive in the current competitive landscape and that capital deployed there earns subpar returns relative to core product and ad platform investment.
The recent \~16% workforce reduction is directionally correct but, in my view, still conservative given SNAP’s maturity as a social media platform and the current state of automation. Your recommendations in the letter to Evan are rational and, if executed rigorously, should move the organization closer to an appropriately lean cost structure. SNAP’s core product does not require a legacy-sized headcount in an environment where LLMs and coding copilots (e.g., Codex, Claude) materially compress the need for incremental engineering and operations roles. I do not have a precise target for the optimal workforce size, but I see a clear argument that further headcount rationalization is warranted to align fixed cost intensity with the true scale and growth profile of the business.
Historically, SNAP’s monetization has been materially below peers; I agree with your assessment that this has been a core weakness. As a daily active user, I have observed a significant, recent step‑up in ad load: my own usage now reflects roughly 12–15 ads per day in the chat feed, and nine additional users I asked to track their exposure report similar levels. Three months ago, the same exercise yielded roughly 2–3 ads per day, implying a multi‑fold increase in surface‑level ad impressions. While anecdotal, this kind of real‑time DAU data is likely directionally representative and suggests meaningful ARPU and EPS tailwind potential into H2 2026. Even if current campaigns are being sold at discounted pricing to re‑engage advertisers, the quality of brands I see—McDonald’s, DICK’S, Foot Locker, Hinge, Wendy’s, Polymarket, Kalshi, etc.—indicates credible demand. Combined with the AppsFlyer partnership, there is a clear path: if these trial campaigns demonstrate strong performance, pricing can normalize in 2027 and monetization per user can move closer to peers. Ajit Mohan’s track record at META on ad monetization gives me additional confidence that the organizational capability exists to execute this shift. My intent is not to repeat facts you already have, but to add a DAU‑level lens that reinforces the thesis that monetization is actually inflecting, not just theoretically “under‑monetized.”
I agree with your proposal to aggressively leverage SNAP’s proprietary datasets and rationalize external AI partnerships around a small number of proven platforms. Economically, that is the right way to monetize an underutilized data asset. My only reservation is around user response: there is a real risk that pushing these partnerships too hard, or in ways that feel intrusive, could erode the user base—the single most important asset in the SNAP equity story. In my view, the opportunity is to monetize data and AI capabilities in ways that are clearly accretive to user experience (better relevance, less spammy ads, safer interactions), rather than purely extractive. Done correctly, this is a high‑return lever; done bluntly, it risks undermining the entire DAU foundation.
I share your concern that SNAP’s SBC levels and voting structure are a structural drag on the multiple and, frankly, off‑putting on gut instinct. The current concentration of voting power, combined with the ability to direct capital into money‑burning initiatives like Specs, sets up an obvious skepticism loop from the Street. The recent workforce reduction should mechanically reduce SBC going forward, which is a necessary first step, but not sufficient. To change market perception, I believe SNAP needs to:
Use incremental free cash flow for **share repurchases** to offset dilution and signal confidence in intrinsic value.
Move toward **meaningful voting rights for common shareholders**, aligning governance with a broader institutional investor base and reducing the perception of unilateral founder control over capital allocation.
Those changes are not cosmetic; they are critical to removing a key overhang on the equity and allowing fundamentals—rather than governance risk—to drive the valuation.
My name is x, I’m 19, and currently attending the University X. I spend most of my time reading and researching the investing world, with a strong preference for value‑oriented, fundamentals‑driven work, which ultimately led me to SNAP. While the ad‑load survey I’ve shared is inherently anecdotal, I have tried to run it carefully and consistently, and I believe it is directionally accurate and potentially informative.
I recognize that I may not be telling you anything you haven’t already considered, but given that we both appear to hold a non‑consensus, fundamentally grounded view on SNAP, I tend to see us as aligned in spirit, even if that feeling is one‑sided. I currently hold roughly a 10% position in SNAP within my own portfolio, expressed through long‑dated call options (LEAPS), with the view that 2027 provides a clean runway for the thesis to play out.
I rarely send emails like this and generally stay away from the institutional investing world, as I prefer managing my own capital and genuinely enjoy the work. I’m reaching out now only because I believe this recent development in ad load and monetization on the platform could be interesting or useful to you as you continue to push for change at SNAP. If I could be of further assistance to you regarding SNAP please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
X