By the time YC published the SAFE, it had a lot of soft power and influence in early stage investing, because it could coordinate with every YC startup in the batch and give them cover if an investor had an issue with the SAFE. They essentially had a "union" (on the startup founder side) with critical mass, which when they all demanded the use of the SAFE instead of bespoke docs (which many investors to this day still try to mess with the standard SAFE), it just became easier for the whole industry to adopt the standard.
I'm curious how you guys are thinking about achieving that effect in the realm of each type of contract? Because on a 1-1 basis, it seems like the bigger party will always just demand their lawyers' preferred contract, and they can have a lot more leverage than a smaller startup.
The other challenge I can see is that ultimately, there's a perverse incentive when it comes to the lawyers. In my experience, large corporate firms like Orrick and WSGR are pretty aligned, because they want the long-term relationships with tech startups. But this product objectively reduces the need for lawyers (which I'm all for, btw!). For larger companies, where they pretty much pass it to their retained law firm at the contract stage of the process, what incentive is there for the lawyers to go with the standard contract (low billable hours), versus a bespoke contract (where they'll make a lot more money)?
Or I guess, how are you guys getting around the lawyers and selling the companies themselves, over the probable objections of their law firms?
I love this, and it seems you've already gotten some good traction, good luck!