[interesting_att]

1) "Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?"

It depends on how you define the founders' risk as well as their contributions. Both are highly subjective. In Box's case, they could've failed due to an infinite number of potential causes, leaving Levie penniless. We don't consider them because Box is now a huge company. As for a founder's contribution, a prescient business strategy and the ability to handle stress is worth its weight in gold. Who would have thought of starting a cloud storage company in 2005? Who could have raised funds for a tech company in 2005, especially someone as inexperienced as Levie? Additionally, founders have to deal with way more stress than an employee. Founders end up thinking about their startups 24/7, because that is their future. An employee can walk away at any time and just get another job.

2) "I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion."

This assumes there is some ideal proportion, one that leads to some optimal social outcome. High equity payouts for founders mean there will be more founders, as average long-term compensation will go up. High equity payouts for first-employees will mean there be more people who want to join semi-stable startups as employees #1 and #2. Which leads to a better social outcome? I don't really know. I would guess we would be better off trying to encourage people to become founders rather than employees. What I do know is that if you don't think equity is good enough for you, you can always try to start a negotiation or start your own company.