Every time a startup issues new shares to raise money, everyone who already held shares owns a smaller percentage of the company than they did before. That’s dilution, and it is not optional. It happens in every priced funding round, every SAFE conversion, and every time a company grows its option pool for new hires. The mistake most first-time founders make isn’t getting diluted, it’s not understanding the mechanics well enough to know whether a given round of dilution is fair.
The Math in Plain Terms
Say a founder owns 100 percent of a company with no other shareholders. The company raises a pre-seed round, issuing new shares equal to 15 percent of the company to investors in exchange for capital. The founder’s ownership doesn’t drop because anyone took shares away from them, it drops because the total number of shares in existence just grew, and the founder’s original shares now represent a smaller slice of a bigger total. After the round, the founder owns 85 percent of a company that, ideally, is now worth substantially more than it was before the cash came in.
Why Dilution Isn’t Automatically Bad
The entire logic of dilution being acceptable rests on one condition: the company’s total value needs to grow faster than the founder’s percentage ownership shrinks. Fifty percent of a company worth 200 million pesos is worth far more than 100 percent of a company worth 20 million pesos. Founders who obsess over defending their ownership percentage at all costs, refusing rounds or over-negotiating terms to avoid dilution, frequently end up starving the company of the capital it needs to actually grow into a larger pie worth owning a smaller slice of.
Where Founders Actually Get Hurt
The real danger isn’t ordinary dilution from a healthy up round, it’s a handful of specific mechanisms that dilute founders disproportionately. Down rounds, where a company raises at a lower valuation than its previous round, dilute founders far more sharply than up rounds because more shares have to be issued to raise the same amount of money. The ‘option pool shuffle’ is another common trap: investors negotiating to expand the employee option pool before the new investment is calculated into the valuation, which effectively makes the founder, not the new investor, absorb the cost of that pool expansion. Stacking multiple SAFEs with different valuation caps ahead of a priced round, as covered in a separate explainer on SAFE notes, can also produce dilution that catches founders off guard when all those instruments convert simultaneously. And in down-round scenarios specifically, full-ratchet anti-dilution provisions, as opposed to the milder weighted-average version, can transfer an outsized amount of ownership to existing investors at the founder’s direct expense.
What Filipino Founders Should Watch For
With Manila’s median Series A round reportedly running above the global average even as the number of Philippine funds able to lead genuinely large checks stays small, Filipino founders often end up needing more rounds, and more individual investors per round, to reach the same total capital raised that a founder in a deeper capital market might raise in fewer, larger rounds. Every additional round is another dilution event, so cumulative dilution across a longer, more fragmented fundraising path can add up faster here than the headline terms of any single round would suggest. Modeling the full expected fundraising path, not just the round in front of you, is the only way to catch that before it becomes a problem you can’t undo.
Share this article