when a company sells an investor a saft it is accepting funds from that investor but does not transfer a coin or token instead the investor receives documentation indicating that they will be given tokens if the project is successful 
because cryptocurrency developers are unlikely to be well versed in securities law and may not have access to financial and legal counsel it can be easy for them to run afoul of regulations the development of saft creates a simple inexpensive framework that new ventures can use to raise funds while remaining legally compliant components of an saftsafts have specific language and definitions that must be included at a minimum in each contract both parties must sign the contract which is then submitted to the sec which posts it in edgar because of the language needed and the importance of what must be included in these contracts it is essential to have an attorney familiar with securities and contract law to help draft and oversee their preparation simple agreement for future tokens saft vs simple agreement for future equity safe a simple agreement for future equity safe allows investors who put cash into a startup to convert that stake into equity at a later date as long as specific conditions are met for example the company that received funds from the investor might specify in the contract that it must achieve specific financial goals before it issues the equity safts are the same developers use funds raised from the saft to develop the network and technology required to create a functional token they then provide these tokens to investors if conditions are met just like an safe an saft is a non debt financial instrument those who invest in an saft face the possibility of losing their money and having no recourse if the venture fails the contract only allows investors to take a financial stake in the venture meaning that they are exposed to the same enterprise risk as if they had invested in an safe 