He also committed a chunk of the initial funding. And it's not rare for capital providers who are there on day #1 to call themselves and be referred to as co-founders.

Essentially it is a short-hand for 'those that were present on the founding day of the company and whose names appear on the founding documents besides the lawyers'.

If you get added later on then you are technically not a co-founder, though even there sometimes (and sometimes rightly) exceptions are made.

> And it's not rare for capital providers who are there on day #1 to call themselves and be referred to as co-founders.

I believe the opposite, never heard of any hands-off investors calling themselves co-founders.

They may not be hands off but they may be there from day #1. It's usually a matter of how much time they can commit. If it is only a little bit then it is usually in an oversight role, but it is also possible that they are instrumental in raising the first round of funding. Or in the case of a medical start-up the person who allows their name to be used by the venture because they believe in the concept or maybe even because they contributed the idea. Essentially: co-founders are those that were there on day #1 or that the rest of the founders allowed to call themselves co-founder even though they joined later (but they have made an outside contributions).

So it's a term with a strict definition but also one with plenty of exceptions.

So there's different scenarios.

The classic is that a person has an idea, starts working Hands-On, and then goes out and finds capital investment.

In this case, a number of capital holders got together with an idea for a company and then went out and hired several employees to from all over the world to work for them

Sounds like a funder rather than a founder. "chairman" is a hands-off role usually.