This is so patronizing, like it's being explained to a sixteen year-old. Also, how is are these "terms": "Board of Directors We think you should control your

This is so patronizing, like it's being explained to a sixteen year-old. Also, how is are these "terms": "Board of Directors We think you should control your board, but we generally like to have a seat too. We don’t take board control. Sometimes it makes sense for us just to have a less formal observer, non-voting seat." If this is a term sheet, then what terms were just stated? 1) investor gets a board seat 2) investor gets a board seat if founders offer one, which they generally accept. 3) investor gets an option on a board seat. 4) investor gets an option on an observer, non-voting seat. 5) 4&5. It's like saying "We generally like to invest at a valuation of $1M-$2M, but smaller - or occasionally larger - deals occasionally make sense." Well those are some great terms there. The section on Exclusivity is directly negated by the section Non-binding Effect. I guess it's only non-binding on them! "If you decide to switch to another investor in that period and it's not because we've done anything wrong, then we might charge you for our costs." But it's totally non-binding, yo. The section on Important Decisions directly contradicts what was stated about board control, since presumably as the first investors they would be majority investors and have to approve the listed decisions. All in all this simply seems like an executive summary of a term sheet. And really, completing a Founder's Questionnaire is a condition for close? This is so incredibly patronizing. It would make anyone want to move to Silicon Valley and get treated with respect. Founders aren't children.