(sorry for the formatting) You're correct that much of this is speculation based on incomplete information. But eventually, the rising amount of potentially negative circumstances equates to real, systemic risk. Here are my responses to your responses :)

> Uber cannot support its operational business without massive VC subsidies (without drastically raising prices and losing their primary competitive advantage)

-- As they're not yet public, we have mostly speculation. We don't know this for sure.

----- I believe there have been enough anecdotal data points and shared financials to strongly support my viewpoint, but I guess it could be argued the other way as well.

> It's too easy for small, local competitors to enter the market

-- I completely agree, but are the small, local competitors not subsidized by investors like Uber? I don't understand how a competitor without backing could compete against an established super corp.

----- Small, local competitors are much better than Established Super Corp at meeting the needs of the local market. They also don't need nearly as much capital as they're just trying to dominate the local market, not the entire world. A proliferation of small, local competitors may be Uber's ultimate undoing - i.e. death by a thousand cuts

> Uber has been trounced in two of the largest non-US markets

-- From an investor's perspective, they came out ahead.

----- But Uber is not in the investment business.

> Waymo legal mess

-- We'll have to wait and see, but I think everyone needs to take this with a grain of salt. Many, many large companies are in constant lawsuits with each other. Read the Amazon Investor's report, for example -- there are three pages of lawsuits, some of which have been ongoing for over a decade.

----- Yes, who knows what will happen here - probably some settlement that doesn't have a long term effect on either company. But it's just one more crappy thing to have to deal with

> The sheer volume/scale of scandal engulfing the company may be impossible to recover from

-- I think this is magnified by the Valley -- peers and friends outside of California seem to either not know, or not care deeply. I honestly don't think Uber's bottom line has been harmed.

----- I think the largest impact of the scandals will be Uber's ability to attract and retain key talent. With all of the other awesome tech companies in the valley, why would I choose to work at Uber? At the very least, they'll have to overpay for talent.

> Current valuation makes an IPO under less than perfect conditions very challenging.

-- I think this was always the case. I don't see what's new now versus two years ago. I think Uber has just as hard a time as, say, AirBNB.

----- You are correct, but today is much further from "perfect conditions" than two years ago

> If this was a well organized, planned round of funding, Benchmark wouldn't have gone behind the backs of the other board members to try and strike some shady deal.

-- At least in my circle, it's widely understood that Bill Gurley burned all his bridges to get Travis out. It's even been suggested he's been the leaker Mike Isaac of the New York Times has been getting his information from. I think Benchmark has destroyed their confidence with the rest of the board (which Travis is still on) and wants to rinse their hands -- I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

----- fair enough, maybe another reason Benchmark wants to move on from their relationship with Uber.