[conanbatt]

To me it sounds like an argument the investor would make to leverage founders not getting equity.

Investors get paid before employees. What if airbnb had answered to him "we will do that, but also, you cannot make any money at all until employees get it, otherwise this shady way of things will harm you long term".

[maineldc]

Well, the investor made it quite clear in his note that he wasn't disagreeing with taking money off the table:

> My basic principle on this stuff is that if you want liquidity, that’s fine, but you should make it available to everyone.

[conanbatt]

Coupling one concession to a requirement makes its harder for it to happen: "Sure, I will give you a salary raise if you can commit to working any saturday i tell you to".

Think also that the least money the founder gets off the table, the investor gets lets capital into his investment itself, he is interested in getting as much money into the business itself, not into the founders pockets.

Arent the investors preferences clear in this point? HE prefers the founder not to get money off the table, and puts a requirement on it.

Another way to put it, he recommends a course of action, but is he the one adding extra money so that course of action goes to his preference? If he is, then by all means its at least a great gesture.

Addition: and also, think of it the other way around. What if a founder told the investors "you are not getting any money unless my employees are getting money as well". Becuase thats not how the deals are structured nowadays.