A good friend of mine was in this entrepreneur's situation, where his technical cofounder had their own consulting firm which specialized in building out infras

A good friend of mine was in this entrepreneur's situation, where his technical cofounder had their own consulting firm which specialized in building out infrastructure for payment processors, and his only client was my friend's fledgling startup. Was it really worth X% of his company to validate someone else's technology and ideas? Was everyone's incentives actually aligned? My friend had a clear vision to build something to solve a specific problem, but he was ironically cursed to have an expert technologist whose vision was a system so generic that it could later be used to solve everyone's problem. One more than one occasion I have had to emphatically explain to a non-tech founder that their "tech guy" has to be 100% in the company. I ask them to name me one successful technology company where there were no technical cofounders. There's a reason consultants are consultants and CTOs are CTOs. In the end, scarcity of time and capital will prevail, so everyone being 100% committed is absolutely essential. In these situations the business cofounder is left with nothing, while the technical cofounder is still a couple lines of code closer to where he wants to go.