Person A gave people B money (which Person A got from work they did) who helped people C (and A).

People B did the initial legwork.

People C paid for the growth (which came from work they did elsewhere).

In the end, person A disproportionately benefited on the backs of persons B and C for the amount of work they did in the entirety of the outcome.

Yeah, person A is arguably merited a ROI, but the insane amount is what some people find is unmerited here.

Person A also took the most risk with their funds at that point in time. I'd like to see what people's views are on giving people close to strangers funds early on when the company has no chance of success.

That is the risk of losing the entire sum of what they put in.

Taking on that risk is where the disproportionate ROI comes from. Person C took way less risk.

In addition, I believe "Person A" in this case actually gave more help than just funds, ie legwork.

I believe there also lots of other versions of the same thing. For example if you bought lots of Bitcoin/Ethereum early on in its first year. It's just that its too risky for people to do that.

In any case, this is admitting that the system is more about circumstances, connections, and luck, not so much about abilities or merits of your work. But this is really why meritocracy doesn't exist - the measure of merit is ultimately subjective...

No, thats not what i'm saying. It is not about luck, since you have to commit something to get lucky. The assumption in the thread you are making is that the luck comes on its own - i.e without this $100k check Google would not have existed.

I also did mention that there was work put in in addition to the check as far as im aware.