Sounds a lot like the CEO gauging the company growth and employee pay in order to build up enough cash to push out investors, get a majority so he could "provide liquidity" for himself.
I can't say if this is close to the mark, but if so it makes perfect sense why the other founders left. Being at the head of a ship with a captain trying to slow down so he can line his own pocket is a special kind of hell.
1) I believe most employees were paid more in that discussion from 8 months ago.
2) If any employees own equity it's also in their best interests to buyback shares since they'll own more of the company. It also means the founder(s) see a bigger potential pay out in the future and will continue putting all of their energy into the business.
The Buffer team's idea of success became different from the VC's who initially invested -- it's smart to capitalize on this and buy back your cap table if the price is right, you can afford it, and you think the company will succeed.
I actually had the same thoughts. I'm surprised he's being so transparent about this. I feel for the employees at this company -- just because a company is profitable, doesn't mean that employees are being paid fairly/market rate.
I wouldn't be surprised if the founder tries to sell the company in the new few years a discount of the current valuation. With 45% ownership, that's a very large chunk of change.
This definitely could be the case, but alternatively there may really not have been a huge amount of increasing month over month growth left in the B2B segment. Sure, you can work your employees harder to get more leads and customers, but that really starts to show through after a few weeks or months, with diminishing results as time goes on.
I can't say if this is close to the mark, but if so it makes perfect sense why the other founders left. Being at the head of a ship with a captain trying to slow down so he can line his own pocket is a special kind of hell.