> This just sounds like optimistic angels not understanding the equations they are a part of.
I agree. I edited out of my rant the fact that investors are supposed to be sophisticated. Everyone knows what they're getting into here. Angels are typically way more sophisticated than startups (if you've done 1 deal that's usually 1 deal more than a founder has). If you can't do the math on this you shouldn't be investing in startups.
>And here we get to the crux of the issue, investors own less. If investors own less, who owns more? Founders do.
I think in this case there are just "more investors than the earlier investors expected to exist".
In any case, if there's a subsequent convertible round after the round you were in, of course there will be more dilution for the angel! And honestly if the subsequent noted were raised at higher caps comparable priced rounds, then the dilution to the earlier angels should be less anyways. This just sounds like optimistic angels not understanding the equations they are a part of.
Frankly said angry Angel should recognize that any subsequent round dilutes them and the founders in similar fashion, and any instrument that is "founder friendly" is existing investor friendly as well by definition.