I wrote this from the heart. You can ascribe whatever agenda you want to believe. But I wrote this for founders and it is based on thirty plus years of working with founders. I don't want to see them get screwed and notes screw them over a lot
Could you poke holes in his/her arguments? Or perhaps cite examples? The counterpoints seem convincing but, hey, I might be totally missing something.
For context, I'm a long-time fan of your writings and REALLY appreciate how much you've given to the community (with the only VC blog worth reading IMO). Just want to fully understand the issue at hand here.
I believe that. Yet, I think founders getting screwed over is largely orthogonal to the type of instrument used to fund companies in the early round. The scruples and sophistication of the parties involved play will tend to play a bigger role.
Among the asserted merits of SAFE's when the came into the YC ecosystem was that it removed some of the distraction that trying not to get screwed over created for founders at 'demo day' or earlier stage companies. At the time, an investor's willingness to use a SAFE might have had an inverse correlation to their willingness to take undue advantage of unsophisticated founders.
we (USV) are the VCs who invested in DDG. we are very patient. and are happy to wait and see where this goes. this was a very small investment for us so there is no pressure on them from us.
it asks a question. or several. so i can learn. it was not designed to say anything. it was designed to stimulate conversation so i can learn and others can learn alongside of me.
All of it