Everybody wants to know how Twitter will make millions. But what if it doesn’t want to grow up?

The Big Money interviewed Biz Stone, another Twitter co-founder, who recently told Portfolio that focusing on a revenue stream would be "a distraction." We wanted to know whether this was all an act, whether Twitter was really just keeping plans close to the vest. So: How often do folks sit down to talk about a revenue model. Once a week? Once a month? It's never discussed, Stone said.

Why not? Because Twitter, according to Stone, still isn't "sustainable." Stone used the S-word as an excuse repeatedly during our chat, as if it were a safety blanket made out of chainmail. Twitter wants to have both a sustainable product and business plan before it starts to capitalize on its community. The product bit makes some sense-for months Twitter's service had been plagued with glitches. But Twitter's servers have been performing relatively well for the last few months, so maybe sustainability has been achieved.

Stone's other comment—that Twitter needed a sustainable business model—was more troublesome. Here, sustainability entails finding revenue without alienating current or future users, a common refrain among Web 2.0 folk. Facebook's ill-fated Beacon advertising platform failed while trying to find that balance. Williams told Download Squad, "Our top concern when it comes to monetization will be to do so in a way that does not negatively impact users." So instead of experimenting with a business model that might accomplish that goal, Twitter's founders continue to lounge within the comfortable status quo.

There may be a deeper, psychological reason that Twitter can't follow the dollar. It may have a Peter Pan complex-it just doesn't want to grow up. Pan ultimately chooses Never Never Land because he is worried about the pains adulthood will invite into his life. For now, Twitter is choosing to do the same.

Because Twitter is so resolute in its nonmonetization, it has earned a certain amount of respect among tech entrepreneurs. They're the champions of an improbable and absurd scenario: Imagine, a company restricts its users' self-expression, builds a global community, and raises millions of dollars. It's impressive enough that somebody actually pulled it off. Even more impressive, though, would be if the geniuses who gamed the system then chose not to reap the monetary benefits. It's a brand of asceticism one can find only in Silicon Valley, and even there only in selected pockets.

It wouldn't be the end of the Internet economy if Twitter chose to go Craigslist's route and operated as a nonprofit disguised as a for-profit. But it can't. In order to get to where it is today, the site had to raise money from venture capitalists—$15.1 million worth. In exchange for the booster shot, the investors demand a considerable return on investment. That means Twitter is going to actually have to try to make some money at some point. Also of note: To get the venture capitalists onboard, Twitter's leaders presumably had to show some type of business plan, so we assume somebody, somewhere, is doing some (private) thinking about monetization.