2026-09-14 · Jhonatan Matias
Fee plus participation: how do we collect for venture building, and why?
Why venture building operates on a model of a fee plus equity, and how this compares to the accelerator model, and what changes when there’s already traction.
Published on September 14, 2026. The figures and references pertain to that edition; the current scope is defined in the proposal.
When someone first hears “honorario plus participation,” they often ask why it’s not simply one or the other. The explanation involves the level of risk each party assumes, and how it compares to existing models within the Chilean entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The three compensation models for startups.
| Model | Who assumes the risk related to cash? | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Only honorary (classic consulting) | The founder pays the same, regardless of whether there are results or not. | A software development firm that charges by the hour or by project. |
| Only participation (investment) | The investor, who doesn’t charge anything if the business doesn’t succeed. | A funding accelerator that provides capital in exchange for equity, such as Platanus, offering approximately $200,000 for 7% ownership. |
| Fee plus participation (in venture building) | It is divided equally between the two parties. | Ditap Ventures: $1,800,000 per month plus 8% (or 5% with traction). |
The hybrid model exists because neither the founder nor the technical team want to assume 100% of the risk associated with a business that currently has no revenue.
Why the fee cannot be zero.
A dedicated technical team incurs real costs each month: salaries, equipment, and the time they no longer dedicate to other projects. If payment were entirely based on future participation, the only way to sustain the team would be to charge a significantly higher percentage, close to what a venture accelerator would demand – not just labor, but actual capital investment. The monthly fee maintains the relationship and allows the team to continue operating as the business is just beginning.
Why participation cannot be zero.
If we only charged fees, the incentive would be to bill hours, not to ensure the business succeeds. This alignment of the technical team’s interests with the founder’s ensures that if the project doesn’t take off, a significant portion of the compensation won’t be received. This is the same logic behind why accelerators charge equity rather than fixed fees.
What changes if there’s already traction?
The percentage decreases from 8% to 5% when the project already has clients paying upfront upon commencement. The reason is straightforward: a portion of the market risk has already been addressed, so the risk assumed by the technical team is lower, and this is reflected in the percentage share.
How does it compare to CORFO Semilla?
CORFO Semilla doesn’t charge a fee because it’s a state subsidy, not an investment – the money isn’t intended to generate a direct economic return for CORFO. This makes it more affordable in terms of equity, but it requires a robust technical development plan to be awarded, which is precisely what we provide. Support for CORFO SemillaMany projects combine both approaches: public funding through CORFO for the initial stage, and venture building for ongoing technical execution.
What remains unwritten before we begin.
No percentage of participation is determined on the fly. Before the team begins working, the agreement specifies: the scope of the project or business line to which the participation applies, the exact percentage, and what happens if either party decides to end the relationship. This initial clarity is what prevents conflicts fifteen months later, when the business has become valuable and each party’s expectations may have changed.
What if the business doesn’t take off? / What if the business doesn’t succeed?
Not all projects entering the venture building process reach the initial sales stage with the original focus, and this is factored into the model. The monthly review exists precisely for this reason: if, after a few months, the evidence shows that the model isn't working, the relationship can be terminated with notice, without leaving any accumulated fees or a debt owed by the founder to the team. The agreed-upon equity only has value if the business becomes valuable; if it doesn't take off, there’s nothing to collect that percentage on, and this is exactly the level of risk the technical team is taking by agreeing to receive a lower hourly rate than they would for a fully paid client project.
When is this model suitable, and when is it not?
The venture building It makes sense when the project requires more than six weeks of dedicated development, and yet it isn't generating enough revenue to cover a full team’s expenses if paid in cash. If the business already has income that covers ongoing development, it’s generally more beneficial to… escalation as a serviceThe same technical team, without reducing their involvement, fully compensated in fees.