Reminds me of this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17779751 about DoorDash which was false. Given some of the same investors are in Rappi, I would not immediately assume they have funky terms.
First of all DoorDash and Rappi are not comparable, as much as they provide the same type of service.
If you're rapidly growing company in South America trying to raise money from American/Asian investors, you're already in disadvantage.
You could totally get competing term-sheets for a company raising money to operate in these markets but nobody is dropping their pants to give money to these companies when they could be easily pouring money into safer markets. These are companies raising unprecedented rounds for markets in which the delivery fees are in their majority under 1 USD. As they keep expanding and growing their business they will have to shave a lot of profitability, while dealing with the unpredictable economic nature of these countries (for example Argentina, one of their markets, is currently going through an economic crisis - their currency is basically worthless, bank rates at 60%, inflation expected to be at 26% this year...not
a great time to pay for food delivery)
I'm not saying that these investors are sharks and just being predatory for the sake of being pieces of shits. What I'm saying is that given the market, the opportunity, the risks, the environment and the competitive landscape is very unlikely that they are leaving these deals without severely affecting the common stockholder pool.
These investors have the fiduciary responsibility of getting the most out of their funds and I really don't see why they would give 200MM USD to a company that operates in emergent economies without getting a huge chunk of ownership.