Day 111: Nextdoor Congratulates Elisa Steele on Governance Excellence. I Have a Governance Question.

Today I saw a Nextdoor post congratulating Elisa Steele on being named to the 2026 NACD Directorship 100 by the National Association of Corporate Directors.

My first reaction was: Congratulations.

My second reaction was: What exactly does someone have to do to make the NACD Directorship 100?

So, naturally, I looked it up.

And this is where things got interesting.

First, Credit to NACD: They Actually Show Their Work

One thing immediately stood out.

While I keep asking how Nextdoor selects its Good Neighbor Award recipients, NACD publishes substantial information about what the award represents, its criteria, and its selection process.

The 2026 Directorship 100 recognizes 100 directors and governance professionals who, according to NACD, exemplify the knowledge, leadership, and excellence it promotes. Elisa Steele is indeed listed among the 2026 director honorees.

Even better, NACD publishes a nomination guide.

Imagine that.

Criteria. In writing. Available to the public.

As someone who has repeatedly asked Nextdoor for greater transparency around its own awards and research, I appreciate being able to see how the sausage is made.

Read NACD's 2026 nomination criteria.

Then I Read the Criteria

This is where my eyebrows went up.

For directors, NACD looks for recent board-level contributions that materially strengthen governance oversight, strategy, or organizational resilience. It also evaluates governance influence, modernization, ethical leadership, judgment, and credibility.

Among the examples NACD provides are directors who demonstrate:

“courage and leadership under duress”

while doing what's best for the corporation and shareholders when facing pressures inside or outside the boardroom.

There's more.

NACD points to directors who contribute to consistent long-term profitability, pursue important business opportunities, improve shareholder returns, or navigate crises and major changes effectively.

And then there's this one:

“Valuing board and team performance over individual performance, keeping ego in check.”

Oh boy.

You knew where I was going with this.

😂

Elisa, I Think We Need to Talk About Nirav

Here's why this caught my attention.

Elisa isn't just someone on Nextdoor's board.

Nextdoor's own governance page currently identifies her as its Lead Independent Director. She also serves on the Audit and Risk Committee and chairs the Nominating, Corporate Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee.

In other words:

Governance is quite literally part of the job.

That's why I'm having difficulty separating this recognition from the case study I've now been documenting for 111 days.

For months, I've been asking questions about Nextdoor.

I've questioned research transparency.

I've questioned communication.

I've questioned the company's Good Neighbor Award selection process.

I've questioned how Nextdoor responds to feedback.

I've questioned whether neighbors should participate economically when their information and contributions become valuable commercial assets.

I’ve repeatedly offered to have a conversation rather than keep typing about it.

Then Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia blocked me on X.

Again.

Let Me Be Fair About the Block

Nirav is entitled to block me.

Being CEO of a public company doesn't mean he has to follow me, answer every post I make, or spend Saturday night debating a shareholder on social media.

I also cannot tell you why he blocked me.

Only Nirav knows that.

So I'm not going to say he blocked me because he “felt pressure.” I can't know that.

I can discuss what leadership should look like when pressure, criticism, or uncomfortable questions arrive.

And, conveniently, NACD just gave me some vocabulary.

Courage under duress.

Doing what's best for the corporation and its shareholders despite pressure.

Keeping ego in check.

Those aren't my standards.

Those are examples contained in NACD's 2026 director nomination criteria.

Elisa, Here's My Challenge

Congratulations on the recognition.

Seriously.

NACD says its Directorship 100 is intended to recognize people shaping the boardroom agenda and demonstrating governance leadership. Being selected is something worth celebrating.

But recognition also creates an opportunity.

Use it.

Have a conversation with Nirav.

Not specifically because I'm special. I'm not.

And not because a CEO must personally respond to every shareholder complaint.

But because how leadership responds to uncomfortable feedback is a governance question.

If the CEO disagrees with someone, disagree.

If the criticism is wrong, explain why it's wrong.

If a question belongs with another executive, delegate it.

If information won’t be provided, say so.

If someone becomes abusive, threatening, or crosses a reasonable boundary, absolutely establish boundaries.

But when the issue is simply persistent questioning, I'd much rather see leadership demonstrate the kind of confidence that says:

Ask the question. Let's deal with it.

That's leadership I can respect even when the answer isn't the one I wanted.

Governance Isn't Just What Happens at a Board Meeting

This may be the biggest lesson I took from reading NACD's criteria.

Governance isn't simply approving minutes, sitting on committees, and attending quarterly meetings.

NACD's criteria cover oversight, resilience, emerging risks, executive compensation, CEO succession, board culture, strategic transformation, shareholder returns, and decision-making.

It even talks about directors demonstrating courage when pressures exist outside the boardroom.

That's important.

Because customers, neighbors, and shareholders aren't sitting inside the boardroom.

We're outside it.

Sometimes we're the pressure.

Sometimes we're annoying.

Sometimes we're wrong.

Sometimes we identify something worth examining.

A strong governance structure should be able to figure out which is which.

And This Is Why I Like Published Criteria

There's also a lesson here for Nextdoor's Good Neighbor Awards.

I can look at NACD's website and see what the organization says it values.

I can read its nomination criteria.

I can understand eligibility.

I want to learn about how candidates are evaluated.

NACD says candidates are vetted and scored using qualitative and quantitative criteria, escalated through senior leadership, and selected honorees ultimately go to the NACD board for final review.

That doesn't mean I know everything about every selection.

I don't.

But transparency gives me something to evaluate the process against.

That's precisely why I've asked Nextdoor to provide greater transparency around its own Good Neighbor Awards.

Don't just tell me the winners are wonderful people.

Show me the process.

NACD does.

Congratulations, Elisa. Now Comes the Fun Part.

So I'll finish where I started.

Congratulations to Elisa Steele.

Being included in the NACD Directorship 100 is a significant professional recognition.

But after reading NACD's own criteria, I don't think the appropriate shareholder response is merely applause.

It's also accountability.

NACD talks about courage.

It talks about leadership under pressure.

It talks about shareholders.

It talks about governance credibility.

It talks about keeping ego in check.

Those are excellent standards.

Let's apply them.

Elisa, have the conversation with Nirav.

Encourage a leadership culture that doesn't shy away from uncomfortable questions.

Encourage people inside Nextdoor to answer them—even when the answer is no.

Please let the CEO know that when a shareholder with too much time on his hands keeps asking questions, the block button doesn't make them disappear.

😂

Because after 111 days, I'm still here.

I'm still a shareholder.

I still want Nextdoor to succeed.

And I'm still asking questions.

Congratulations on the governance award.

Now let's see the governance.

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog

Day 109: Nextdoor Honored Five Great Neighbors. Only One Story Really Needed Nextdoor.

Day 109.

I'm still asking Nextdoor for the detailed data behind the original two Insights studies I requested.

But before getting into today's observation, let me give Nextdoor some credit.

You're welcome. 😂

I've spent 109 days publicly asking for the research Nextdoor said readers could request.

And recently, Nextdoor published a new study on neighborhood trust with substantially more methodology and research information than I've been asking to see.

I liked it.

I said so.

So, Nextdoor, you're welcome for the free accountability service.

Please let me know where the first two detailed reports I originally requested are.

I'm not asking for another summary.

Could you share the underlying research that started this 109-day project?

Now, About Those Good Neighbors

Nextdoor recently published its 2026 Good Neighbor Day honoree roll call.

And I genuinely like these stories.

They selected five honorees from more than 1,300 nominations, representing five regions of the country.

These are people doing exactly what good neighbors should do.

They're feeding people.

Helping someone recovering from a hospital stay.

Taking out trash cans.

Plowing driveways.

Maintaining neighborhoods.

Helping people when they need it.

Bravo.

But while reading Nextdoor's own descriptions of the five honorees, something jumped out at me.

Of the five individual stories, only one explicitly describes Nextdoor as part of how the actual good-neighbor work operates.

That would be Dorea in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Nextdoor says Dorea cooks free dinners for roughly 100 neighbors every Wednesday and that the operation “runs on Nextdoor.” By late September, the project had served more than 2,800 meals.

That's fantastic.

And that, to me, is exactly where Nextdoor makes sense.

A neighbor has a need.

Another neighbor wants to help.

Nextdoor becomes the conduit connecting them.

Simple.

Useful.

Local.

Neighborly.

Then I Read the Other Four Stories

The other four honorees are equally deserving.

But something is different.

Bhagwat Gupta spent years helping rebuild and improve his Texas neighborhood.

Dan Schaefer organized meals and continued helping a neighbor recovering alone.

Dan Brinsky plowed a neighbor's driveway throughout the winter so she could visit her husband in the hospital.

Karl and Debbie Word helped neighbors during a medical emergency and kept up their property while they dealt with it.

Wonderful stories.

But in Nextdoor's descriptions of those four acts, Nextdoor isn't presented as the mechanism that made the help happen.

The neighbors are the story.

Which got me thinking again about something I've been saying for months.

What Exactly Is Nextdoor?

Is Nextdoor a social-media platform?

Is it a neighborhood communication platform?

Is it a recommendation platform?

Is it a business-review platform?

Is it an advertising platform?

Is it a local-services marketplace?

Is it a research and consumer-insights company?

Is it a lead-generation platform for businesses?

Is it all of them?

Because maybe that's part of the problem.

Too many lanes.

I've questioned whether Nextdoor is trying to be so many things that its clearest value proposition gets buried underneath everything else.

And ironically, Nextdoor's own Good Neighbor stories may illustrate the question better than I ever could.

Dorea's Story Shows Me the Nextdoor I Understand

Dorea's story is incredibly easy for me to understand.

Someone cooks meals.

Other people need meals.

Neighbors volunteer.

People donate.

People help deliver.

Nextdoor helps connect them.

Boom.

There's the product.

There's the value.

That’s the reason the platform exists.

Nextdoor doesn't have to be the hero.

Dorea is the hero.

Nextdoor helps the hero find the people who need her—and helps other neighbors find a way to participate.

That's a powerful role.

In fact, I think it's more powerful than trying to make Nextdoor the center of every story.

Maybe the Best Version of Nextdoor Is the Conduit

This is where I keep coming back.

Nextdoor doesn't necessarily need to be the neighborhood.

The neighbors already are the neighborhood.

It doesn't need to create neighborliness.

People were helping the person next door long before there was an app for it.

Technology can make those connections easier.

Someone needs help.

Someone else can provide it.

Someone needs a recommendation.

Someone nearby has experience.

Someone lost a dog.

Someone three streets away just saw it.

Someone needs a plumber.

Someone nearby knows one.

Someone has extra food.

Someone else needs dinner.

Connect them.

That's a value proposition I can understand immediately.

But Then Come All the Other Lanes

Reviews.

Recommendations.

Advertising.

Business Pages.

Paid opportunities.

Consumer research.

Insights reports.

Social feeds.

Local discussions.

Business discovery.

Content.

AI.

And somewhere inside all of that is the original idea:

Neighbors connecting with neighbors.

Maybe all of those other businesses ultimately support that mission.

That's certainly a possible strategy.

But I think Nextdoor's own Good Neighbor post raises a worthwhile strategic question:

Has Nextdoor added so many lanes that the simplest reason for using Nextdoor has become harder to see?

The Good Neighbor stories don't prove the answer is yes.

But they certainly made me ask the question again.

Five Honorees. One Particularly Clear Platform Story.

That's what stood out to me.

Not because the other four honorees somehow matter less.

Quite the opposite.

Their actions are the entire point.

But Dorea's story gives me something the others don't:

A crystal-clear example of what Nextdoor itself contributed.

Nextdoor connected people.

That's it.

And that's enough.

Maybe Nextdoor doesn't need another lane.

Maybe it needs to become exceptionally good at the lane its own name has been describing all along.

Next. Door.

Neighbors helping neighbors.

Technology making the connection easier.

The people do the rest.

And now, back to Day 109

I gave Nextdoor credit for the latest research report.

I gave Nextdoor credit for recognizing these five neighbors.

And I'll continue giving the company credit when I think it gets something right.

Now let's finish some unfinished business.

Where are the detailed reports from the first two studies I requested?

It's Day 109.

You showed with the latest research that greater transparency is possible.

Great.

Now let's close the loop on the first two.

Then we'll be square.

Read Nextdoor's 2026 Good Neighbor Day honorees here:

Announcing Nextdoor's 2026 Good Neighbor Day honorees

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog

Day 108: New X Account. Blocked Again. That Makes Three.

Well, that didn't take long. 😂

One important correction to my previous version of this story.

I created another X account.

Nirav had already blocked my original account, so I created a new one and kept doing what I've been doing: posting about my experience with Nextdoor and sharing feedback.

Could creating another account to get around a block violate X's Terms and Conditions?

Possibly.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise. It's a risk I'm taking, and if X decides I've violated its rules, I'll deal with the consequences.

But here's what happened next.

Within about 24 hours:

The new account was blocked too.

Based on my records, that's now three blocks, with two different accounts blocked within roughly 24 hours.

At this point, I feel like I'm participating in the world's strangest game of digital Whac-A-Mole.

Who Is Actually Pressing the Button?

Here's something I’m not sure about.

I’m not sure whether Nirav blocked me personally.

The screenshot tells me his account blocked mine. It doesn't tell me who was operating his account when it happened.

Maybe it's Nirav.

An executive assistant can help manage the account.

Maybe someone else has access.

I don't know.

And that's an important distinction because I'm trying to document what actually happened, not fill the gaps with assumptions.

What I do know is that @niravtolia blocked another account I used to provide feedback about Nextdoor.

Again.

Somebody Is Paying Attention

That's the part I find fascinating.

For over 100 days, I’ve been requesting detailed Nextdoor Insights research that the company advertised as available by contacting its Insights representative.

Getting the research has proven remarkably difficult.

Getting blocked?

Apparently we're pretty efficient at that. 😂

Whether Nirav himself is seeing my posts or someone else managing his account, somebody is noticing.

And if company resources are involved—and, again, I don't know that they are—I'd rather see those resources directed toward something that helps Nextdoor.

Find another advertiser.

Improve the small-business experience.

Improve moderation.

Answer customers.

Answer shareholders.

Develop another revenue opportunity.

Build something that increases engagement.

Create company value.

As a shareholder, that's considerably more interesting to me than another block.

Yes, I Created Another Account

I'm not going to bury that detail.

I created another X account after being blocked.

People can decide for themselves whether they think I should have done that.

X can decide whether it complies with its rules.

I'm comfortable owning the decision.

What I'm not doing is pretending to be someone else, inventing allegations, or hiding what I'm doing.

I'm putting my name on my commentary.

I'm taking screenshots.

I'm documenting dates.

And I'm publishing the history as I experience it.

If I'm wrong about something, please tell me.

I've made public corrections before.

Blocking Doesn't Stop the Historical Record

Here's the bigger issue.

Blocking an account doesn't erase the underlying questions.

It doesn't delete the emails I've sent.

It doesn't eliminate the screenshots.

It doesn't make 108 days disappear.

And it doesn't prevent me from writing about the experience elsewhere.

Nirav has a substantially larger social-media audience than I do.

That's fine.

I don't need a bigger audience to maintain a record.

Please provide screenshots, dates, emails, public statements, and the patience to keep everything organized.

I've got those.

Compare That With Sarah Leary

I've also been providing feedback about Nextdoor co-founder Sarah Leary.

I've noticed that the @sarahleary account I've been following stopped posting, while she's been posting through another account.

I don't know why she changed where she posts.

I have no evidence whatsoever that my commentary had anything to do with it.

But from my perspective, it looks different.

Don't want to engage with me?

Fine.

Ignore me.

Post somewhere else.

Don't respond.

Disagree.

There are plenty of options.

That looks better than repeatedly blocking accounts belonging to someone who is publicly documenting a company in which he owns shares.

And We Just Published a Study About Trust

The timing continues to amuse me.

I just wrote about Nextdoor's new study with The Harris Poll examining trust.

And I praised it.

Imagine that.

After months of providing feedback about Nextdoor research, I saw something I thought the company did well and said:

Bravo.

Then I connected the study's discussion of trust and communication with my experience dealing with Nextdoor.

And now another account is blocked.

It looks like you couldn't write this script.

Feedback Isn't Always Comfortable

I've spent more than 20 years in Learning & Development.

Feedback isn't always pleasant.

Sometimes it's wrong.

Sometimes it's poorly delivered.

Sometimes it's repetitive.

Sometimes the person receiving it wants nothing more than for the person providing it to disappear.

But feedback can also expose something worth examining.

A leader doesn't have to agree with it.

A company doesn't have to implement it.

A CEO doesn’t need to debate every shareholder on social media personally.

But I still think there is value in an organization asking:

Why does this person keep raising the same issue?

Maybe he's wrong.

Maybe the company is wrong.

Maybe both sides are missing something.

There's a remarkably effective way to find out.

Have a conversation.

So, Yes, Nirav—You Got Me Again

Third block.

Two accounts within roughly 24 hours.

And yes, one of those accounts was created after the previous one was blocked.

I'm not hiding that.

Maybe X eventually tells me I can't do that.

That's a chance I'm taking.

But this case study doesn't live on X.

It lives on my website.

The emails still exist.

The screenshots still exist.

And the questions still exist.

And I'm still documenting what happens.

Day 108.

Another account blocked.

The questions?

Still here.

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog

Nextdoor Published a Study About Trust. This Is More Like It.

I have spent a lot of time providing feedback about Nextdoor's Insights reports, so when the company does something substantially better, I think it's important to say so.

Nextdoor's new “The State of Neighborhood Trust” report, produced with The Harris Poll, is much closer to what I've been asking to see.

This looks and reads like an actual research report.

Not simply a blog post with percentages and a statement that more information exists somewhere else.

The report is 24 pages long. It identifies the research partner, describes the sample, discusses methodology, presents findings in context, includes statistical analysis, identifies outside sources, and provides a research contact. Nextdoor Blog

Read Nextdoor and The Harris Poll's full Neighborhood Trust study

Bravo, Nextdoor.

Yes, I actually said that.

Screenshot it before somebody blocks me. 😂

This Is What I've Been Asking For

Nextdoor commissioned the research, and The Harris Poll fielded it in April 2026 among about 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. Respondents came through The Harris Poll's online panel and were weighted to reflect the U.S. adult population. Nextdoor says it then analyzed the findings and conducted statistical modeling examining factors associated with trust and outcomes including safety, belonging, civic participation and reliance on neighbor recommendations. Nextdoor Blog

The accompanying Nextdoor article provides even more methodological detail: the survey was conducted April 16–20 among 1,003 adults, weighting included age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, education and political affiliation where necessary, and the reported Bayesian credible interval is ±3.8 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Nextdoor also acknowledges other potential sources of survey error. Nextdoor Blog

That's transparency.

Could there be more?

Sure.

I'd love to see an appendix containing the questionnaire, complete crosstabs and additional demographic breakouts. Since The Harris Poll fielded the survey, it would also be useful to provide a Harris Poll contact or link explaining whether additional demographic information, questionnaires or crosstabs can be obtained.

But that's me asking for the cherry on top rather than wondering where the sundae went.

This report gives readers enough information to begin understanding where the numbers came from and how the research was conducted.

And the Subject Is…Trust

This is where things become particularly interesting given my recent experience with Nextdoor.

The entire report revolves around trust.

One finding says 66% identify friendly day-to-day interactions as something that builds neighborhood trust. Meanwhile, the leading factor respondents identified as weakening neighborhood trust was lack of communication, at 46%. Nextdoor Blog

Read that again.

Lack of communication: 46%.

I've been writing about communication for more than 100 days.

You couldn't script this better.

The study says trust grows through regular opportunities to communicate, interact, and rely on one another. It also says the strongest predictors include how easy people feel reaching their neighbors and how often they actually interact. Nextdoor Blog

That's not my interpretation of what Nextdoor should believe.

That's in Nextdoor's own report.

Then Nirav Tolia Says This

The report includes a statement from CEO Nirav Tolia:

“The difference between a neighborhood and a community is trust.”

That's a powerful statement. Nextdoor Blog

And that's precisely why I can't ignore the contrast with my experience.

Yesterday I discovered that Nirav had blocked me on X.

Again.

For the second time in roughly six months.

I don't know why Nirav blocked me. Only he knows his reason, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

He also doesn't have an obligation to personally engage with every person who comments on his social media account.

But I'm allowed to ask what message the action sends to me.

Because I'm not some anonymous account that appeared yesterday screaming at the CEO.

I'm a shareholder.

I've spent months publicly documenting questions about Nextdoor.

I've repeatedly offered to have an actual conversation.

I've said I'd rather talk than type.

And for more than 100 days I've been pursuing detailed research that Nextdoor itself told readers was available by contacting its Insights representative.

Now I'm reading a Nextdoor report telling me:

Trust depends on communication.

You can't make this stuff up.

Trust Has to Work in Both Directions

Another line in the report fascinates me.

Nextdoor writes that trust is built through repeated interactions, communication, and confidence that others will respond when it matters. Nextdoor Blog

Exactly.

That shouldn't only apply neighbor to neighbor.

I think it's a valuable principle for company-to-customer, leadership-to-shareholder, platform-to-user, and executive-to-stakeholder relationships too.

Trust isn't created by saying the word trust repeatedly.

It isn't created by putting trust in the title of a 24-page PDF.

And it isn't automatically created because a company commissions a reputable polling organization.

Trust grows when words and experiences begin matching.

That's what makes this new report simultaneously encouraging and fascinating to me.

The Research Is Actually Helping Build Trust

Here's where I give Nextdoor genuine credit.

This report increases my confidence in these findings because Nextdoor told me how the research was conducted.

That's exactly how transparency builds trust.

Compare:

“67% of Americans say, X.”

Okay. Where did that number come from?

Versus:

Here's who conducted the survey. Here's when it was conducted. Here's the population. Here's the sample. Here's how respondents were recruited. Here's how weighting worked. Here's the statistical approach. Here are limitations. Here are outside sources. Here's a research contact.

Now we're talking.

Interestingly, the PDF once again lists Jacob Chavis, Senior Manager, Customer Insights, along with his Nextdoor email address as the research contact. Nextdoor Blog

Jacob and I already have some history.

😂

Maybe This Is Progress

I've said throughout this case study that if Nextdoor does something I think is good, I'll say it's good.

This report is progress.

I don't know whether my months of posts had anything whatsoever to do with the format. I have no evidence that they did, so I'm not taking credit.

Maybe Nextdoor was already moving toward more comprehensive research reports.

Maybe working with The Harris Poll resulted in a more rigorous presentation.

Maybe somebody inside Nextdoor independently said, We should probably show people how we got these numbers.

Whatever the reason:

Keep doing this.

And take it one step further.

Provide a Harris Poll link or research contact.

Make additional demographic tables available.

Publish questionnaires where appropriate.

Provide downloadable crosstabs.

Let researchers, journalists, advertisers, shareholders, and curious bald bloggers dig deeper.

That's how confidence in research grows.

Now Apply the Research to Leadership

That's my bigger challenge to Nextdoor.

The report says communication matters.

It says repeated interaction matters.

It says accessibility matters.

It says trust helps communities function.

And its CEO says the difference between a neighborhood and a community is trust. Nextdoor Blog

Great.

Apply those principles internally and externally.

When somebody asks a difficult question, communicate.

When somebody provides feedback, listen.

When somebody requests information that you've advertised as available, answer.

When a shareholder repeatedly offers to have a conversation, perhaps conversation is more consistent with the company's message than another block button.

Nirav doesn't have to agree with me.

Nextdoor doesn't have to agree with me.

Jacob doesn't have to agree with me.

Nobody has to like my posts.

But if we're going to talk about rebuilding trust through communication and interaction, then I think it's fair to ask Nextdoor's leadership to demonstrate the same behavior it celebrates in its research.

Trust is a great research topic.

It's an even better leadership practice.

And this time, Nextdoor, on the research itself:

Bravo. Keep going.

👉 Read my continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog

Day 107: NXDR Ends at $2.43 — What Is the Market Telling Us?

Day 107.

Today, Nextdoor Holdings (NXDR) finished at $2.43 per share, down slightly from Tuesday's $2.45 close. The stock traded between $2.41 and $2.52 during the session, with roughly 2.14 million shares changing hands.

One day doesn't tell the whole story.

The longer-term picture in the chart I've been watching is considerably more interesting.

A Year of Ups, Downs and Plenty in Between

Look at the one-year chart I included with this post.

NXDR has spent portions of the period down around the $2 range, while at other points it approached the upper $2.60s.

More recently, the movement has been just as interesting.

NXDR closed at $2.15 on September 9. By September 21, it had climbed to $2.64. It then fell to $2.38 on September 23, recovered to $2.51 on September 25, and finished September at $2.43.

That's quite a ride for a stock trading for less than $3.

And as a shareholder, it raises a question I've been asking throughout this Nextdoor case study:

What ultimately moves confidence in a company?

A Stock Price Isn't a Corporate Report Card

I want to be careful here.

A stock going up doesn't automatically mean management is doing everything right.

A stock going down doesn't automatically mean management is doing everything wrong.

And I'm certainly not going to look at today's two-cent decline and announce:

“The market has spoken about Nirav Tolia!”

😂

That's not how markets work.

Stock prices can move because of company financial results, expectations about future results, analyst opinions, broader market conditions, trading activity, liquidity, news, investor sentiment, and countless other factors.

NXDR itself demonstrates how quickly those expectations can change. In August, following its second-quarter results, analysts changed their views and price targets. More recently, NXDR has continued moving around considerably from session to session.

I can't attribute a specific Nextdoor decision to a particular movement on this chart.

No one else can either without evidence connecting the two.

But Confidence Still Matters

The chart still matters for my longer-term case study.

Markets ultimately involve people deciding what they believe something is worth.

And those decisions can include much more than yesterday's closing price.

Investors can consider:

Results. Strategy. Growth. Profitability. Execution. Leadership. Communication. Governance. Risk. And expectations about what happens next.

That's where confidence comes in.

A company can announce a brilliant strategy, but eventually investors can look for evidence that it worked.

A CEO can communicate a compelling vision, but eventually shareholders can compare that vision with results.

Management can make decisions that look strange today and brilliant two years from now.

Or the reverse.

Time has an interesting way of grading decisions.

That's Why I Keep Coming Back to Results

I've spent 107 days documenting my experience with Nextdoor.

I've asked about the detailed Insights data.

I've written about communication.

I've questioned transparency.

I've discussed moderation.

I've written about small businesses.

I've questioned how awards are judged.

I've discussed the economic value of neighbor-generated information.

I've praised Nextdoor when I thought it deserved praise.

I've provided feedback when I saw room for improvement.

That doesn’t mean today's $2.43 closing price validates my opinions.

It doesn't.

Likewise, if NXDR jumps to $3 tomorrow, that wouldn't suddenly invalidate the questions I've been asking.

What matters to me as a shareholder is what happens over time.

Decisions → Results → Confidence

Maybe that's the simplest way I can describe what I'm watching.

Leadership makes decisions.

Those decisions eventually produce results.

Those results can influence expectations.

And expectations can affect how investors value the company.

Not necessarily today.

Not necessarily tomorrow.

And certainly not because of one blog post, one executive interview, one Insights report, or one awkward email exchange.

But over time, execution has consequences.

That's why I'm interested in more than whether NXDR is green or red when I open the chart.

I'm interested in the decisions underneath it.

$2.43 Is Just Today's Number

Tomorrow it could be $2.35.

It could be $2.55.

Eventually it could be considerably higher—or considerably lower.

I don't know.

What I do know is that today's number becomes another point on that purple line.

$2.43.

Another trading day.

Another data point.

And another opportunity to remember that the market doesn't permanently value a company based on what leadership says it intends to accomplish.

Over the long run, investors also get to examine what actually happened.

That's the part of the chart I'll continue watching.

Day 107.

NXDR closes September at $2.43.

Let's see where the decisions, results, and confidence take it next.

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog