[parasubvert]

I'm not a VC so I don't have an eye on the current trend, but a few years ago they were in less that 20% of deals in a particular quarter: http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/04/demystifying-the-vc-term-s...

So, perhaps not exactly "rare", but uncommon. And rarely used, even if included. Back in 2008ish when I was more into fundraising, I didn't see them.

[danieltillett]

Have they been replaced with anything else? Without redemption rights what do VC have to keep control of founders?

[nostrademons]

Not investing in founders that aren't going for the home run.

Ultimately many of the good VCs would rather not "keep control" of founders. They'd rather just pass on the investments that look like they will become a big drain on VC partner time & attention in the future. A startup where there's a big power struggle over company directions and the board has to kick out the founders is far worse than not making the investment in the first place: it consumes a scarce resource (partner bandwidth) that could be much better spent searching for new opportunities. Much better to seek out founders where your goals are aligned to begin with and then trust them.

The difference in your experience and parasubvert's could be explained if the VCs you dealt with believed that your startup has a trajectory that would make it likely that it would become a lifestyle business, contrary to their interests. Then they'd want a way to claw back their capital if it looked like they would never see an exit.

[danieltillett]

Yes but how do they know this in advance? Up until quite late in the process the founder control the majority of the company. I am amazed that more founders have not gone feral.

My experience is from sometime ago (long before YC). Interestingly my business did pivot to being a lifestyle businesss, not out of choice, but because I could not get VC funding. My only regret is that it took my customers longer to learn about our products than they would have if I had not had to bootstrap.