The markets responded the way free-market patriots hoped they would when two of Grindr’s largest shareholders moved to buy out the rest of the company, offering $18 a share in a proposal that values the dating app at roughly $3.46 billion and sent the stock sharply higher on the news. This isn’t some Wall Street fairy tale — it’s decisive capital at work, correcting a valuation that markets had punished amid short-term fears and sloppy narrative-driven selling.
The buyers behind the move are not faceless private equity firms but board insiders George Raymond Zage III and James Fu Bin Lu, who together control more than 60 percent of Grindr’s stock and put forward the $18-per-share cash proposal to buy the minority holders. Their stake and experience with the company — including their role in bringing it public — give them skin in the game and a clear incentive to stabilize and rebuild value away from the noisy glare of public markets.
Make no mistake: taking a business private can be the smart, patriotic choice when markets and regulators conspire to squeeze growth out of an innovative company. The investors argued that the platform needs focused, long-term work to fend off slowing user growth and mounting competition from algorithmic and niche rivals — problems that are easier to fix off the quarterly-earnings treadmill.
That said, conservatives should also insist on fairness and rule of law — the mechanics of a squeeze-out matter. Legal scrutiny has already emerged around whether the board and controlling shareholders are treating minority owners fairly, with questions raised about fiduciary duty and whether the special committee will truly protect smaller investors’ rights. Markets and property rights both deserve respect; transactions that leave Mom-and-Pop shareholders blindsided need careful, independent oversight.
Financing for the proposed deal appears to be coming together, with reports of debt talks, including interest from Fortress Investment Group, and lingering complications tied to prior financing arrangements that raised pressure on insiders to resolve ownership issues quickly. Those practical realities show why clear, transparent deal terms and independent scrutiny from the board aren’t just legal niceties — they’re the difference between a tidy private restructuring and a messy, value-destroying fight that could invite more government meddling.
Patriots who believe in capitalism should cheer the fact that two investors are willing to put real capital on the line to rescue and refocus a business, rather than watching it be hollowed out by faddish narratives or regulatory grandstanding. This is entrepreneurship in action: bet on an idea, invest to improve it, and if necessary, take it private to rebuild without the short-term frenzy of public markets.
The sensible conservative position is clear — support decisive private capital and management accountability, insist on fair treatment for minority shareholders, and resist the temptation by activists and regulators to turn every corporate decision into a political spectacle. If Zage and Lu can deliver better products, stronger results, and greater privacy and safety for users, then their willingness to invest should be welcomed, not reflexively vilified.
