I think it's totally reasonable that, if one founder is putting a significant amount of capital at risk, he should hold a higher share of the company going forw

I think it's totally reasonable that, if one founder is putting a significant amount of capital at risk, he should hold a higher share of the company going forward. I would think that dividing things equally really only makes sense for pretty lean startups. I'm not sure I really see the point in obsessing over how "fair" the deal you're getting is -- it's not like there's a basket of equivalent startups you're deciding between. Ultimately, your opinion of the EV of the particular business seems likely to trump obsessing over a few hundred basis points of ownership. (At least that's how I justify to myself not being an "equal" partner)