It seems the summary is that they will require them to be paid back through business profits as a result of it not aiming for VC-level returns. They also close

It seems the summary is that they will require them to be paid back through business profits as a result of it not aiming for VC-level returns. They also close the loophole of not showing much business profits on paper by defining profit as founder earnings. If your earnings from the company crosses a certain threshold, the investors tax your personal salary to get its return. What they are undecided on is whether they want to keep this forever, or until they actually get their capital + profit margin repaid. I'm in their target market myself, so here's my two cents. It's fair to offer some additional remuneration for a VC taking extra risk with ideas with smaller potentials, but this sounds a little draconian. It sounds a little like they're covering their bases (which is great!) but also putting themselves in a place where they might have to go after people's salaries, which is going to create a lot of resentment. It feels almost like an attempt to take something more risky, but try to do some legal finagling to push even more risk onto the founder just so that they can bring it down to regular VC-level risk for themselves. It feels like almost by definition most all of the 'good' investment that they want to pursue will be able to make themselves eligible for normal VC funding by either no or little work, and the additional complexity and unknowns incurred by this untested agreement is more expensive than what a good company would accept. Because for much less work than that, they can go the traditional route. Since they're bootstrapping, they don't have the urgency of 'I have to find money in x weeks or the company goes bust' either.