|
|
|
|
|
by sebleon
2845 days ago
|
|
> $2.5m of $3.5m was for founders and early team [of Series A money] Terms: > Series A class of shares included a protective provision which meant that Buffer was unable to offer liquidity for other shareholders > a return of 9 percent annual interest on their investment at any point So... the founders raised a series A mostly to give themselves liquidity, at the expense of a high interest loan that also threw their early investors under the bus? Well, they definitely achieved their vision of putting together an atypical round. Given their lack of interest in going down the VC-startup path (high growth at all costs, keep raising, aim for IPO, etc), it's unclear what their motivations were to raise a VC round in the first place. |
|
The normal story of what happens when a company takes an investment planning for hypergrowth and that doesn't pan out is that the company "pivots" to some usually-less-promising hypergrowth opportunity and repeats until it dies. The outcome here seems far better for investors, which is presumably why they took advantage of it.