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

Texas tops ranking of best state for investors in new report

by the numbers

Texas ranks third on a new list of the best states for investors and startups.

Investment platform BrokerChooser weighed five factors to come up with its ranking:

  • 2024 Google search volume for terms related to investing
  • Number of investors
  • Number of businesses receiving investments in 2024
  • Total amount of capital invested in businesses in 2024
  • Percentage change in amount of investment from 2019 to 2024

Based on those figures, provided mostly by Crunchbase, Texas sits at No. 3 on the list, behind No. 1 California and No. 2 New York.

Especially noteworthy for Texas is its investment total for 2024: more than $164.5 billion. From 2019 to 2024, the state saw a 440 percent jump in business investments, according to BrokerChooser. The same percentages are 204 percent for California and 396 percent for New York.

“There is definitely development and diversification in the American investment landscape, with impressive growth in areas that used to fly under the radar,” says Adam Nasli, head analyst at BrokerChooser.

According to Crunchbase, funding for Texas startups is off to a strong start in 2025. In the first three months of this year, venture capital investors poured nearly $2.9 billion into Lone Star State companies, Crunchbase data shows. Crunchbase attributes that healthy dollar amount to “enthusiasm around cybersecurity, defense tech, robotics, and de-extincting mammoths.”

During the first quarter of this year, roughly two-thirds of VC funding in Texas went to just five companies, says Crunchbase. Those companies are Austin-based Apptronik, Austin-based Colossal Biosciences, Dallas-based Island, Austin-based NinjaOne, and Austin-based Saronic.

Autonomous truck company rolls out driverless Houston-Dallas route

up and running

Houston is helping drive the evolution of self-driving freight trucks.

In October, Aurora opened a more than 90,000-square-foot terminal at a Fallbrook Drive logistics hub in northwest Houston to support the launch of its first “lane” for driverless trucks—a Houston-to-Dallas route on the Interstate 45 corridor. Aurora opened its Dallas-area terminal in April and the company began regular driverless customer deliveries between the two Texas cities on April 27.

Close to half of all truck freight in Texas moves along I-45 between Houston and Dallas.

“Now, we are the first company to successfully and safely operate a commercial driverless trucking service on public roads. Riding in the back seat for our inaugural trip was an honor of a lifetime – the Aurora Driver performed perfectly and it’s a moment I’ll never forget,” Chris Urmson, CEO and co-founder of Pittsburgh-based Aurora, said in a news release.

Aurora produces software that controls autonomous vehicles and is known for its flagship product, the Aurora Driver. The software is installed in Volvo and Paccar trucks, the latter of which includes brands like Kenworth and Peterbilt.

Aurora previously hauled more than 75 loads per week under the supervision of vehicle operators from Houston to Dallas and Fort Worth to El Paso for customers in its pilot project, including FedEx, Uber Freight and Werner. To date, it has completed over 1,200 miles without a driver.

The company launched its new Houston to Dallas route with customers Uber Freight and Hirschbach Motor Lines, which ran supervised commercial pilots with Aurora.

“Transforming an old school industry like trucking is never easy, but we can’t ignore the safety and efficiency benefits this technology can deliver. Autonomous trucks aren’t just going to help grow our business – they’re also going to give our drivers better lives by handling the lengthier and less desirable routes,” Richard Stocking, CEO of Hirschbach Motor Lines, added in the statement.

The company plans to expand its service to El Paso and Phoenix by the end of 2025.

“These new, autonomous semis on the I-45 corridor will efficiently move products, create jobs, and help make our roadways safer,” Gov. Greg Abbott added in the release. “Texas offers businesses the freedom to succeed, and the Aurora Driver will further spur economic growth and job creation in Texas. Together through innovation, we will build a stronger, more prosperous Texas for generations.”

In July, Aurora said it raised $820 million in capital to fuel its growth—growth that’s being accompanied by scrutiny.

In light of recent controversies surrounding self-driving vehicles, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, whose union members include over-the-road truckers, recently sent a letter to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick calling for a ban on autonomous vehicles in Texas.

“The Teamsters believe that a human operator is needed in every vehicle—and that goes beyond partisan politics,” the letter states. “State legislators have a solemn duty in this matter to keep dangerous autonomous vehicles off our streets and keep Texans safe. Autonomous vehicles are not ready for prime time, and we urge you to act before someone in our community gets killed.”

Houston cell therapy company launches second-phase clinical trial

fighting cancer

A Houston cell therapy company has dosed its first patient in a Phase 2 clinical trial. March Biosciences is testing the efficacy of MB-105, a CD5-targeted CAR-T cell therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory CD5-positive T-cell lymphoma.

Last year, InnovationMap reported that March Biosciences had closed its series A with a $28.4 million raise. Now, the company, co-founded by Sarah Hein, Max Mamonkin and Malcolm Brenner, is ready to enroll a total of 46 patients in its study of people with difficult-to-treat cancer.

The trial will be conducted at cancer centers around the United States, but the first dose took place locally, at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Swaminathan P. Iyer, a professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at MD Anderson, is leading the trial.

“This represents a significant milestone in advancing MB-105 as a potential treatment option for patients with T-cell lymphoma who currently face extremely limited therapeutic choices,” Hein, who serves as CEO, says. “CAR-T therapies have revolutionized the treatment of B-cell lymphomas and leukemias but have not successfully addressed the rarer T-cell lymphomas and leukemias. We are optimistic that this larger trial will further validate MB-105's potential to address the critical unmet needs of these patients and look forward to reporting our first clinical readouts.”

The Phase 1 trial showed promise for MB-105 in terms of both safety and efficacy. That means that potentially concerning side effects, including neurological events and cytokine release above grade 3, were not observed. Those results were published last year, noting lasting remissions.

In January 2025, MB-105 won an orphan drug designation from the FDA. That results in seven years of market exclusivity if the drug is approved, as well as development incentives along the way.

The trial is enrolling its single-arm, two-stage study on ClinicalTrials.gov. For patients with stubborn blood cancers, the drug is providing new hope.