Few counterpoints:

- Your entire theory relies on VCs having some power over decisions being made at Atlassian. That isn't the case. The founders of Atlassian have always been in control. After taking VC money and going public, they still have over 80% of the voting shares [0].

- A downturn of 5+ years would be the longest downturn in the USA in the last 100 years [1]. Anything is possible but it's unlikely to be that bad.

[0] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220527005335/en/Atl...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...

I think you're using "downturn" differently.

GDP contraction won't last five years. But it will be longer than the GDP contraction before VC money becomes as easy as it was for the last five years.

Easy money being available after five years is also uncertain. With covid shock, then global sanction following Russian invasion, and deglobalization following in the wake of these two events, global economy is faces serious uncertainty in coming years.

Also the low interest environment was unusual. We could have very easily have a booming market with much higher rates. Just look at the 90s.

You don't say it explicitly, but there's a bit of a garden-of-eden in this story: Founders were running this great wonderful profitable business and then those darn VCs come in and ruin everything.

A founder isn't forced to take on investors. The same founders who were so "down to earth" and profitable are the ones making the decision to take on investors. The founders can't be responsible for profits and then suddenly get taken advantage of by investors. Everyone involved is eyes-wide-open.

Lots of great businesses have been built, in partnership with investors, during higher interest rate periods and downturns.

There's also a bit of "path not taken" - perhaps whatever choice wasn't made wouldn't have worked out great anyway, for various other reasons.

I guess if you’re a founder-CEO, you may get tired after 20 years. Passing the ship over to market forces is probably the most widespread solution.

And maybe there is no good option, no matter how “down-to-earth” they are.

> The good times are over for VC backed SaaS

Disagree. These companies absolutely pump out cash on a free cash flow basis:

"It’s the absolute dollar free cash flow per share that you want to maximize, and if you can do that by lowering margins, we would do that. So if you could take the free cash flow, that’s something that investors can spend. Investors can’t spend percentage margins.” “What matters always is dollar margins: the actual dollar amount. Companies are valued not on their percentage margins, but on how many dollars they actually make, and a multiple of that.” “When forced to choose between optimizing the appearance of our GAAP accounting and maximizing the present value of future cash flows, we’ll take the cash flows.”"

https://25iq.com/2014/04/26/a-dozen-things-i-have-learned-fr...

Seems like he meant "It's bad for me (the VC) to be profitable when you're growing"

Bingo. The VC wants the grand slam that returns the entire fund. He'd rather have an x% chance of a grand slam than a 3x% chance of a double/triple. Founders have a very different calculus because their risk isn't spread across a portfolio of companies.