So can we itemize the exact benefits of this type of deal versus taking a somewhat bigger stake up front? I can think of a couple:<p>1. In the case of a sub-$100M exit, where perhaps founders are getting squeezed, every little bit of extra equity counts. YC graciously forgoes their stake in the company. That&#x27;s unquestionably good.<p>2. In the case of a big exit, YC essentially bypasses dilution and targets a <i>fixed</i> post-dilution equity stake, regardless of how much subsequent investment the company took on.<p>That lets founders retain more equity early on and thus be that much less diluted, while still getting YC ballpark what they&#x27;d like to get in the end. So that&#x27;s nice.<p>But how might subsequent investors feel about YC getting the same fixed percentage of a IPO&#x27;ing Series B vs. Series E stage company? Could this possibly complicate funding down the line? Is it &quot;too good&quot; of a deal for YC in the Series E case?<p>(I admit the absolute amount here is fairly low, and YC is &quot;special&quot; in the industry. But I&#x27;d want to sketch out the consequences in detail before taking the deal.. someone &quot;pays&quot; for these founder and YC benefits.)<p>Another (scary?) thought: might more investors demand this sort of deal down the line? Would a seed or Series A or Series B investor ask for fixed percentages of IPO&#x2F;acquisitions? I can&#x27;t even fathom how that would scale or complicate taking on investors.. Does this only work of it&#x27;s a special one-time thing?