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

UH expands Medical Center footprint with $77M research facility

breaking ground

The University of Houston broke ground on a brand new $77.5 million Medical Research Building last week that will host clinical trials and a virtual reality behavioral health suite, among other laboratories. Designed by SmithGroup, it will be the second building on the UH Medical Center campus after the Fertitta College of Medicine opened in 2022.

“The Medical Research Building was designed to foster collaboration and discovery while creating a welcoming environment for students, researchers and the community,” Kalman Nagy, higher education studio design leader for SmithGroup, said in a news release. “As the second building on the University of Houston’s medical campus, we wanted to create a strong connection to the College of Medicine and the surrounding woodlands, with outdoor terraces, shared learning spaces and natural views that inspire interaction and innovation.”

Located just behind the Fertitta building at 5150 Medical Service Drive, the 57,000-square-foot building will house wet laboratories, computational research spaces and specialized facilities for clinical research. The virtual reality behavioral health suite will use immersive technology to deliver care through manufactured audio and visual environments. It’s part of the college’s vision for developing new medical advancements in the heart of Houston’s medical community. The groundbreaking comes on the heels of the launch of the university's cross-disciplinary academic venture, UH Health, this summer.

“This groundbreaking marks an important next step in the growth of the Fertitta College of Medicine and UH Health,” Dr. Jonathan McCullers, vice president for health affairs at UH, added in the release. “We are building the research capacity to match our ambitions—bringing together scientists, physicians and experts from across the University to accelerate discovery and turn promising ideas into solutions that improve people’s lives.”

UH’s journey to establish a significant presence alongside the University of Texas and Baylor in the Medical Center started in 2009 when it became an official full institutional member. The university launched its plans for the Fertitta building in 2013, and is pursuing Health Science Center designation from the Texas Legislature in the next year’s session.

“The research that will take place here will directly benefit our community,” UH President Renu Khator added. “Diseases do not recognize disciplinary silos, and neither should our research. This building will bring together experts from across UH to break down those barriers, work across disciplines and tackle some of our most complex health challenges.”

The building is slated to open in 2028.

Houston ranks among 15 U.S. hot spots for women in tech

Ranking It

Houston is soaring among the best places in the U.S. for women in tech, a new report says. Houston ranked No. 15 nationwide in SmartAsset's new report, "Best and Worst Cities for Women in Tech — 2026 Study," which compared the 50 biggest U.S. cities across four metrics:

  • Gender pay gap — women's median earnings as a percentage of men’s median earnings in tech
  • The share of all tech workers that are women
  • The overall concentration of employment for tech workers, defined as "tech workers as a share of the local workforce"
  • Women tech workers’ median earnings, adjusted for regional price parity
For the purpose of the study, tech workers are defined as "city residents employed in computer and mathematical occupations." The study's findings show that fewer than 9,500 tech workers in Houston are women, or 25.6 percent of the total tech workforce in the city. In total, tech workers in general make up less than 3 percent of the Houston workforce.Despite the high ranking, women tech workers in Houston have a sizeable gap to cross to receive equal pay compared to their male counterparts in the same industry. Women tech workers make just over $97,000 in median earnings after adjusting for regional price parity, which is only 93 percent of what male tech workers make, SmartAsset found.

There are only two U.S. cities where women in tech earn more than what their male counterparts: Miami and Memphis, Tennessee. Women tech workers in Miami make an adjusted $88,650 in median earnings, or 101.7 percent of what men in tech make. In Memphis, women make $84,718 in adjusted earnings, or 101.5 percent of what men in tech earn.

The findings also assert that women remain underrepresented in the nation's overall tech sector, despite making up nearly half of the total workforce. Only 22.6 percent of the country's tech labor force is made up of women, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."Opportunities for women in tech can vary considerably by location, and these differences shape access to jobs, career advancement and earning potential," the report's author wrote. "In some places, women account for a larger share of tech workers, face narrower pay gaps and enjoy a stronger local labor market. In others, they may encounter a more challenging career environmentThe six other Texas cities that earned spots in the report are Austin (No. 6), Fort Worth (No. 26), Dallas (No. 32), Arlington (No. 38), San Antonio (No. 42), and El Paso (No. 49).

The top 10 best U.S. cities for women in tech are:

  • No. 1 – San Jose, California
  • No. 2 – Seattle, Washington
  • No. 3 – San Francisco, California
  • No. 4 – Atlanta, Georgia
  • No. 5 – Baltimore, Maryland
  • No. 6 – Austin, Texas
  • No. 7 – Oakland, California
  • No. 8 – Portland, Oregon
  • No. 9 – Boston, Massachusetts
  • No. 10 – Minneapolis, Minnesota
---

This article first appeared on CultureMap.com.