[elcomet]

> 1. SAFEs are convenient if everyone is amenable, but be careful about having SAFEs sitting around too long or with different terms. They're like the Mogwai in the Gremlins films. They're kind and cuddly unless you feed them after midnight or get them wet.

Your analogy is funny but you don't actually explain why SAFEs are dangerous, could you develop?

[api]

If you have SAFEs with different terms the calculations for your cap table can become onerous and complicated and confusing.

If things get confusing some SAFE holders might feel like they're getting a worse deal than others, which can cause acrimony on your investor team.

If they sit around too long the risk of these things increases. SAFEs are so easy someone can offer to invest and you say yes and BAM you sign one... without bothering to carefully look over all previous SAFEs etc. and make sure terms are in line with expectations. They're almost too easy to execute.

My analogy came from the fact that if you have these problems you can get a complexity explosion during the next priced round.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is really the TL;DR.

[aliyeysides]

Isn't this really an issue with SAFEs that have pre-money terms? Genuinely asking bc idk. I thought post-money SAFEs kinda solved for this. Less favorable for the founder, but far less complex when dealing with multiple investors.

[gumby]

No, both get their pain from different discount rates.

I was sorry when SAFEs switched to post money -- it was a power play for the investors.