Should your startup opt for SAFEs or convertible notes on your next funding round? This Houston expert weighs in. Photo via Getty Images

As both a founder and occasional early-stage investor in the Houston ecosystem, I've seen firsthand the opportunities and challenges surrounding seed funding for local startups. This critical first fundraising round sets the trajectory, but navigating the landscape can be tricky, especially for first time founders who may not be familiar with the lingo.

One key dynamic is choosing the right deal structure — SAFEs (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) vs. convertible notes are the most common vehicles early stage startups use to raise capital and are far more founder-friendly than a priced round.

Let's start first with what the have in common:

  • Both allow you to defer setting a valuation for your company until a later (likely priced) round, which is useful in early stages or pre-revenue companies
  • Both are cheaper and faster to execute than a priced round, which cash-strapped early stage founders like
  • Both can have terms like valuation cap, discount, conversion event, and pro rata rights.
  • Both are less attractive to investors seeking immediate equity (especially important if starting the QSBS clock is part of your investors strategy or if the investor is newer to startup investing)
  • Both can create messy cap tables and the potential for a lot of dilution for the founders (and investors) if they are used for multiple raises (especially with different terms)

While as you can see they have similarities, they have some important differences. Let's dig in on these next:

SAFEs:

  • Created by Y Combinator in 2013, the intent was to create a simplified, founder friendly agreement as an alternative to the convertible note
  • Is an agreement for future equity for the investor at a conversion event (priced round or liquidation event) which converts automatically.
  • It's not a debt instrument and does not accrue interest or have a maturity date.
  • Generally have much lower upfront legal costs and faster to execute

Convertible Notes:

  • A debt agreement that converts to equity at a later date (or conversion event like a priced round)
  • Accrues interest (usually 2 to 8 percent) and has a maturity date by which the note must either be repaid or convert to equity. If you reach your maturity date before raising a qualifying round, you can often renegotiate to extend the maturity date or convert the note, though be prepared to agree to higher interest rates, additional warrants, or more favorable conversion terms.
  • More complex and take longer to finalize due to non-standard terms resulting in higher legal and administrative costs

It's worth reiterating that in both cases, raising multiple rounds can lead to headaches in the form of complex cap tables, lots of dilution, and higher legal expenses to determine conversion terms. If your rounds have different terms on discounts and valuation caps (likely) it can cause confusion around equity and cap table structure, and leave you (the founder) not sure how much equity you will have until the conversion occurs.

In my last startup, our legal counsel — one of the big dogs in this space for what it's worth — strongly advised us to only do one SAFE round to prevent this.

Why do some investors tend to prefer convertible notes?

There are a few reasons why some investors, particularly angel investors from developing startup ecosystems (like Houston), prefer convertible notes to SAFEs.

  • Because they are structured as debt, note holders have a higher priority than equity investors in recovering their investment if the company fails or is liquidated. This means they would get paid after other creditors (like loans or credit cards) but before equity investors, increasing the likelihood of getting some of their money back.
  • The interest terms protect investors if the founder takes a long time to raise a priced funding round. As time passes, interest accumulates, increasing the investor's potential return. This usually results in the investor receiving a larger equity stake when the note converts. However, if the investor chooses to call in the note instead, the accrued interest would increase the amount of money owed, similar to a traditional loan
  • More defined conversion triggers (including a maturity date) gives investors more control and transparency on when and how their investment will convert.
  • Can negotiate more favorable terms than the standard SAFE agreement, including having both a valuation cap and a discount (uncommon on a SAFE, which usually only has one or the other), interest rates, and amendment clauses to protect them from term revisions on earlier investors by future investors (called a cram-down), etc.
We'll go over what the various terms in these agreements are and what to look out for in a future article

How to choose:

  • Consider your startup's stage and valuation certainty — really uncertain or super early? Either of these instruments are preferable to a priced round as you can defer the valuation discussion
  • Assess investor preferences in your network — often the deciding factor if you don't have a lot of leverage; most local angels prefer c-notes because they see them as less risky though SAFEs are becoming more common with investors in tech hubs like Silicon Valley
  • Evaluate your timeline and budget for legal costs — as I mentioned, SAFEs are way less expensive to execute (though still be prepared to spend some cash).
  • Align the vehicle with your specific goals and growth trajectory

There's no one-size-fits-all solution, so it's crucial to weigh these factors carefully.

The meanings of these round terms like "seed" are flexible, and the average seed funding amount has increased significantly over the past decade, reaching $3.5 million as of January 2024. This trend underscores the importance of choosing the right funding vehicle and approach.

Looking ahead, I'm bullish on Houston's growing startup ecosystem flourishing further. Expect more capital formation from recycled wins, especially once recently minted unicorns like High Radius, Cart.com, Solugen, and Axiom Space exit and infuse the ecosystem with fresh and hungry angels, new platforms beyond traditional venture models, and evolving founder demographics bringing fresh perspectives.

------

Adrianne Stone is the principal product manager at Big Cartel and the founder of Bayou City Startups, a monthly happy hour organizer. This article original ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

10 most-promising energy tech startups named at annual Houston event

top companies

Investors from around the world again identified the most-promising energy tech startups at the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship's annual event.

"The recognition that Houston is the epicenter of energy transition is growing. It's something we are championing as much as possible so that the world can know exactly what we're doing," Paul Cherukuri, chief innovation officer at Rice University says at the 21st annual Energy Tech Venture Forum.

The event took place during the inaugural Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week, and nearly 100 startups from 23 states and seven countries pitched investors Wednesday, September 11, and Thursday, September 12. At the conclusion of the event, the investors decided on 10 companies deemed "most promising" from the presentations.

This year's selected companies are:

  • Revterra, a Houston-based company innovating within kinetic battery technology to enable faster and cleaner electric vehicle charging.
  • From Austin, 360 Mining is a modular data center provider for the oil and gas producers.
  • New York company Andium is a centralized and optimized operations platform for large energy companies.
  • Elementium Materials, a local Katy-based company, created its battery technology that originated out of MIT.
  • Splight is a San Mateo, California-based technology platform that provides real-time operational data based on inverter-based resources assets.
  • Los Angeles-based Mitico, one of the Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator's class 4 participants, provides services and equipment for carbon capture through its granulated metal carbonate sorption technology.
  • From Cambridge, Massachusetts, Osmoses is changing the way molecular gas separations are performed within the chemical, petrochemical, and energy industries.
  • Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator class 4 participant CORROLYTICS, based in Houston, has a corrosion detection and monitoring technology. The company also won over the crowd and secured the People's Choice win too.
  • Ardent, based in New Castle, Delaware, has developed a membrane technology for point-source carbon capture.
  • New Haven, Connecticut-based Oxylus Energy produces an alternative fuel from converting CO2 into green methanol.

Last year, investors named its selection of most-promising companies at Rice.

"We have a responsibility as a city to lead energy transition," Cherukuri continues. "A lot of the investments we're making at Rice are going to change the world."

Scientists use Houston rainwater to explore origins of life on Earth

let it rain

A flask of Houston’s rain helped answer a long-running question about the origin of cellular life.

The solution is proposed by two University of Houston scientists, William A. Brookshire Department of Chemical Engineering (UH ChBE) former grad student Aman Agrawal (now a postdoctoral researcher at University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering) and Alamgir Karim, UH Dow Chair and Welch Foundation Professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, and director of both the International Polymer & Soft Matter Center and the Materials Engineering Program at UH. They were joined by UChicago PME Dean Emeritus Matthew Tirrell and Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jack Szostak in an article published last week in Scientific Advances.

For two decades, scientists like Szostak have hypothesized that RNA fragments were the first components of life to form in the Earth’s primordial seas 3.8 million years ago. Although DNA is an essential component of cellular life, it can’t fold proteins, making it unlikely to be the initial starting point. Since RNA can fold proteins, it could have been the catalyst for cellular growth and evolution.

The problem is that seawater molecules allow RNA to bond and change too quickly, often within minutes. Rapid dissipation means no segregation of material, and thus no evolution. Szostak himself proved in 2014 that regular seawater doesn’t allow RNA fragments to form the membranes necessary for cellular life.

Then along comes Agrawal. He wasn’t looking into the origin of life. He was an engineer studying the properties of complex liquids for his doctorate. Karim was his thesis adviser and introduced Agrawal to Tirrell, who brought up the RNA problem over a lunch and some theories about how if the water was distilled it may have solved it. Where would you get distilled water 3.8 billion years ago?

“I spontaneously said ‘rainwater,’” says Karim. “His eyes lit up and he was very excited at the suggestion. So, you can say it was a spontaneous combustion of ideas or ideation.”

Using RNA samples from Szostak, they saw that distilled water increased the differences in exchange rate between samples from minutes to days, long enough for the RNA to begin mutation.

Distilled lab water is nothing like prehistoric rain, though. Luckily, a typical Houston downpour occurred during the research. Agrawal and fellow UH graduate student, Anusha Vonteddu ran outside with beakers to collect some. The samples again formed meshy walls, separating the RNA and possibly showing how life began from these fragments billions of years ago.

“The molecules we used to build these protocells are just models until more suitable molecules can be found as substitutes,” Agrawal said. “While the chemistry would be a little bit different, the physics will remain the same.”

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.