Well it turns out even that wasn’t enough and they did the same thing. I suspect VCs control too much of the financing.
I mean, the model for most companies - having a very heavy legal component when big money figures are being generated/spent - requires a great deal of bureaucracy which, somehow, inherently prohibits participation at an individual scale, in the massive profits.
It seems that a lot of it hinges on the nature of work for hire. If only there were systems in place that could make every human being a work for hire payment, even those performing CEO duties, then possibly the profits would be easier to spread.
I think a lot of startup problems exist in the Founder/CEO versus Founder/CTO versus Founder/CFO dynamic, which is what any company following the legislated structures must deal with.
VC’s exploit these dynamics, they can do it with money/financing, and they can do it without it, as well.
The crazy thing is, cases exist throughout history of three individuals getting together, building something great, and doing it without requiring any venture capital, generating through their own efforts, adventure capital.
In founder-matching profiles, I've started saying that I wanted to spread the wealth around with early hires, more than the convention. If founders win, the early hires also win.
Lesson learned: no matter how busy a founder is, they are no less petty than anyone else, and some will make time for a call, just to see who this hippie a--h--- is. :)