In my mind, fair ownership is proportional to investment risk. Each owner invests some combination of time and capital.
I assume you are an employee, so how much risk are you taking on?
If you aren't already wealthy, and its a startup - which means you pretty much selling you life to the thing - than everything you have.
A VC might invest a million in ten different companies, but they often still have another 10 in traditional stocks to fall back on if all their ventures fail and they can continue to sit pretty. Their investment in the company is mathematically significantly larger than an employee, but that isn't how it feels when the business goes belly up. The VC writes off another failure, made another million somewhere else, and meanwhile the dev is distraught with blaming himself for basically his lifes work failing.
Yes, there can be role reversal there, it is not absolute, but it is the average. Just because some have and some have not does not mean someone can not put in a lot more of themself into a project. There are enough VCs that got rich off of being the developer that they probably recognize the difference.
And yes, that should hold weight when you only want to give the guy that makes the dream the reality .05% while a guy surfing waves after doing a VC round on a yacht providing the money to make it happen can expect incredible returns if the dream succeeds.
Those with the resources will always have more to lose than those without. This doesn't justify greater protections for them, especially when the reasons that have more are directly tied to the kinds of protections they have.
That's circular reasoning.
What you have to show is that those who are investing more money are making better decisions. Because we want to protect those who make the best decisions, not simply those who have the most invested.
