You'll likely never get full transparency from a post like this. All parties involved have a shared interest -- to paint the best picture possible to maintain the value of the company. Everyone cordially agrees to disagree, saying this is just a personal growth thing, then everyone hugs and gives high-fives on the way out the door....
Take these posts with a grain of salt. If everything were hunky-dory, there wouldn't be a senior level departure at all.
There are a couple of different ways of running a business, and a lot of them can be captured in what kind of growth you expect. Buffer did 50% growth last year. Great for what it is, but it's not the same culture and company as one that can sustain 100% YoY growth.
2 of the 3 founders wanted a 100%+ YoY growth company. The CEO didn't. Notwithstanding the realities of cash and organic growth, the CEO always wins these disagreements, so the other 2 founders left.
There are a lot of ways you can grade a business. Against the VC-rocket-ship metric, Buffer is mediocre and small. Against cash and stability, they're rock-solid and large. In the mind of the departing founders, the business was in trouble, because it was failing to achieve the metrics necessary to be graded well against that first yardstick. And they're right, but it doesn't mean Buffer is going to collapse today, tomorrow, or ever.
If you're going to get transparency from a company, Buffer's gonna be it. Their Baremetrics install is publicly available. Their salaries are published on their website. They run on a "radically open" platform of management.
When I read this I wondered it he is being fully transparent with himself. It may be a post full of the truth from one angle but everyone knows the truth doesn't exist in 2 dimensions.
Take these posts with a grain of salt. If everything were hunky-dory, there wouldn't be a senior level departure at all.