Jack Dorsey's Block Questioned Over $68 Million Party Precedes Shocking 4,000 Layoff Allegedly Disguised as Company Strategy

A lavish $68 million (approximately £50.3 million) celebration has placed Jack Dorsey's Block at the centre of controversy after the company cut 4,000 jobs just five months later, citing artificial intelligence as justification.

In September 2025, Block reportedly spent $68 million (approximately £50.3 million) on a single corporate party, a figure that quickly ignited debate across social media and financial circles. The scale of the spending, first highlighted in a viral post on X, stunned observers who compared it to the annual payroll of roughly 200 employees earning $340,000 (approximately £251,600) each.

The $68 Million Party That Sparked Outrage

Block has not publicly broken down the costs of the September event, but the headline figure alone has drawn significant scrutiny. The sum, equivalent to the annual compensation of approximately 200 high-earning employees, fuelled accusations of reckless spending. At a time when technology firms globally have been tightening budgets and reducing headcount, the expenditure struck critics as difficult to justify.

Although the company has not publicly broken down the costs of the event, the headline figure alone has been enough to trigger widespread scrutiny.

Five Months Later, Mass Layoffs

The company had announced layoffs affecting 4,000 workers, around 40% of its workforce, attributing the decision to a strategic pivot towards AI and so-called 'intelligence tools'. The timing has raised questions about whether the cuts were truly strategic or a consequence of earlier financial excess. In February, Block confirmed the departure of 4,000 employees, representing around 40% of its workforce and one of the most significant reductions in the company's history. Management attributed the cuts to a strategic shift towards AI, with executives citing investments in 'intelligence tools' and automation and arguing that technological efficiencies would reshape the company's operational needs.

The official framing positioned the cuts as forward-looking rather than reactive. Yet the juxtaposition between the party expenditure and the mass redundancies has proven difficult to ignore, with online commentators and some analysts questioning whether AI is being used as a convenient explanation for cost-cutting measures that may have other origins. Yet the juxtaposition between the party expenditure and the mass layoffs has proven difficult to ignore.

AI Strategy or Financial Correction?

The central question facing Block is whether AI was genuinely the primary driver of the layoffs. Technology firms have broadly embraced AI to enhance productivity and reduce costs, and automation can eliminate repetitive tasks and increase margins, particularly in fintech and digital payments. However, sceptics argue that the timing undermines that narrative, with some analysts suggesting financial miscalculation may have played a role.

For those affected by the layoffs, the distinction matters. Losing a role due to automation is one reality; losing it months after a multimillion-dollar corporate event is another, and perception among employees and investors alike has been complicated by the sequence of events.

Questions From the Top Down

Jack Dorsey has not directly addressed the relationship between the party spending and the subsequent layoffs beyond broader comments about AI transformation. Without detailed clarification, questions persist: was the $68 million event a pre-approved budget item aligned with long-term planning, or did it reflect a disconnect between leadership and financial discipline?

If AI is indeed central to Block's future, workforce restructuring may prove strategically sound over time, and many technology firms are undergoing similar transitions. However, the perception that a $68 million party preceded a sweeping round of redundancies has complicated that case considerably. In an environment where corporate decisions are scrutinised in real time, the reputational challenge may prove as difficult to manage as the operational one.

And in an era where corporate decisions are dissected in real time, that may prove the more difficult hurdle to overcome.