Figma had 8 funding rounds in 10 years, according to crunchbase. That is an advantage compared to other players on the market that do not receive VC. If it's fair or not, that’s up to everyones own standards.

You do not "receive" VC, you sell shares (and control). You write as if it's some sort of grant that Figma uniquely got access to.

I don't see an issue with my wording here. You receive money, or "venture capital", which you should spend on talent acquisiting, marketing, you-name-it. If I were to assume that VC comes without strings attached, I'd have used the appropriate wording.

I think the more common term is to "raise money". But at the end, you receive money that you should spend. With strings attached, of course. That’s the nature of VC.

Yes but that's pretty common and in no way an unfair advantage.

It’s fair, because they earned it by building the best offering on the market.

Fairness doesn’t mean everyone gets funded regardless of their quality.

Should the other players not have also raised VC money if it was such a differentiating advantage? Perhaps they should have sold even more equity than Figma did and raised more money if that would have been the difference maker.

Figma is also a company that starts with an "F". Whether thats fair or not is up to everyone's standards.