[clevy]

This is a high class problem to have! As mentioned above, this seemed to us to be an extreme corner case. To remain simple, we tried not to draft for every scenario (which was hard, believe me - lawyers do this by nature). It may require some patience on the part of the safe holder, but odds are that eventually a company will have a liquidity event.

[amirhirsch]

My company is in one of these corner cases where we haven't converted our debts but still operate with a small, but growing revenue stream. It's possible that I will be able to repay the debts with interest in 2-5 years depending on how well we invest revenues in growth and part-time development. I wonder if it isn't more beneficial for me to have the option of paying back debts from revenues and then use revenues to pay out dividends to shareholders and more beneficial for investors to be able to call on the debt when it comes due if the company has accumulated enough revenues. With a safe, both parties seem to lose leverage over the other. I realize that startups in my situation are probably already a write-off from the investors' perspective, so perhaps it's just cheaper to ignore them, but I could imagine a number of people raising $100K safes ending up with an app that makes $30K per year and investors just get screwed.

[wtvanhest]

What about the case where the business becomes a low growth, life style business. Is there any way to force a liquidity event?

[not_that_noob]

Not that I can see. So the it's up to the parties in that eventuality to work things out.

[jedberg]

> So the it's up to the parties in that eventuality to work things out.

That's usually a bad way to make a legal contract. As an investor I'd want something a little more definitive.