Arguably that's not a startup (depending on the rate of growth) and so these "mistakes" are fine. Sitting stagnant at $2 million/month revenue (assuming you have <<$2 million/month costs) is a perfectly fine situation for a business, and is in many ways preferable to having growth prospects but no actual money. But if you don't have growth prospects then the ideas about burning through VC money to hockey-stick-curve your way into realising a huge valuation aren't applicable.
$2m/mo for only 2 customers is probably terrible. loss of 1 customer is loss of 50% revenue. and worse moreso if those customers came via network vs organically. it means you have no proven way to replace one of them.
it sounds like a horrible business, resting on its laurels.
I agree. It's not horrible, they understand their conundrum, but $2m/mo is way, way better than $0m/mo. You get to actually productively address the conundrum on your own timeline, rather than let VCs run things after giving you money on abusive terms. The downside is it lets one be complacent.
