I want to see African founders win.

$5B African VC in 2021. 🚀🚀🚀

But as Africa gets “hotter”, I think we’ll see more problems with broken early-stage cap tables given the volume of pre-seed (~80%) and number of first-time founders.

Here are some signs of a broken cap table:

1. Excessive founder dilution.

You’ve given up too much equity too soon. You’re on track to be a minority shareholder by Series A and successive rounds make you nervous. But your startup needs capital.

Series B/C/D investors worry that you’re too diluted to stay motivated.
2. Passive investors own meaningful chunks of your equity.

They’re possibly opportunistic angels or advisors that came in early. They’re free riders - adding little value to your journey but taking up space on the cap table. They’re not very helpful or responsive.
3. Misaligned investors own meaningful chunks of your equity.

They’re probably institutions but they don’t necessarily share your vision. They were aligned, engaged and responsive to start with. But they may have shifted focus along the way…maybe Africa became less “hot”.
4. Your institutional investors are not a stage fit.

They’re PE/SME not VC and own 50% (or close enough to that) of your equity. They place demands on you that are more suited to later-stage startups. Like audited financials or quarterly boards at the pre-seed stage.
5. Your investors are not experienced with startups/VC.

They insisted on (and you conceded to) unusual control provisions like ring-fenced capital (eg for “advisors”) or to be co-signatories to your bank accounts. They didn’t use a standard SAFE/overloaded the side letter.
As excitement heats up, the best advice I think experienced founders & investors can offer first-time founders is to be discerning.

Be thoughtful about who’s on your cap table and why.

Your equity is precious. Give it to people you can work with into the long-term.

Good luck!

More from All

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.