Even if you assume that this is generally true, it doesn't mean that increased founder "power" has really come at the expense of investors. The coordinated mon

Even if you assume that this is generally true, it doesn't mean that increased founder "power" has really come at the expense of investors. The coordinated money printing by central banks around the world has injected trillions of dollars into the global economy, and the greatest beneficiaries of that have been a) firms in the financial sector and b) individuals who have significant exposure to financial markets. This, of course, has a direct and indirect impact on Silicon Valley: 1. It's easier to raise a venture fund when LPs are doing well. Fed action has incentivized investment in riskier asset classes. Appetite for risk is broad-based and not concentrated in venture capital, but venture capital has certainly benefited. 2. Thanks to QE Infinity, the fortunes of many publicly-traded Silicon Valley companies have risen with the stock market and the IPO window is open. A handful of tech companies even sport 1999-like PE ratios. This has created enormous wealth in the Valley, much of it liquid, which has produced an angel (and super angel) boom. Founders, particularly those with a track record and/or traction, may be able to negotiate better terms today than they could have even a few years ago, but that's largely because the dollars being invested in their companies are so cheap. Who would you rather be: an entrepreneur who thinks he's getting a good deal because he got a higher valuation and retained more control, or the investor who gets to invest with Monopoly money?