A few that I've really enjoyed so far, if you don't mind the suggestions:

* Antichromatic (hit and subsequently blasted out of the sandbox earlier this week, effectively Ikaruga mechanic applied to a platformer)

* Inferno & Ballistic SE (same author, same general gameplay, different world mechanics)

* Saturday Morning RPG

I'd love to see an actual vs fighter, but currently lack the free time to even care about hacking one up :/

I have another possible explanation for that first question, and I am making the assumption that I'm not the only person that has had to work on not feeling this way:

Even though we really shouldn't feel this way, a lot of us developer sorts wrestle with the idea that we're the only ones ever really working, specifically in the pure development phase of a project.

Granted, I'm sure everybody feels that way at least once during a given venture. I've forced myself to stop thinking that way, but it seems a fairly human thing to think.

Already said (far) below in this post, but the work on the part of the technical team to produce an MVP is often front-loaded, which means that the technical person (team) assumes most of the initial execution risk. Equity distribution should recognize the assumed risk.

If the technical person does not execute on the MVP, the idea guy mostly out only lost time-to-market. On the other hand, if the technical person delivers, he/she is now "all-in" before the idea person typically contributes meaningful execution-value towards the business.

Its probably most fair to view the first "execution" contributors (technical team building MVP) as the first investors in the business, and therefore should be recognized with more favorable terms (equity distribution). If the idea person can create actual execution value in tandem with the MVP, then an initial 50/50 split is fair.

If you have an "idea" person, you're screwed. You need a product person. I don't know how to code, but I can help with wireframes, customer interviews, feedback, marketing plans, pricing strategies, partnership opportunities, etc. The very idea of an "Idea Person" needs to go away and people need to be accountable to providing value. And you don't need an MVP for the Product Person to start working. And I use that term very loosely. Because if they aren't building the product, they should be supporting/defining/selling it.

I've actually heard a pitch in the last year that was "Facebook, but for college students."

I may have died a little inside.

We often do get the short end of the stick, and the article addresses that bit, but probably not clearly enough.

The message that I've taken away from it is "dude, hustlers need hackers and hackers need hustlers, so equal footing is probably a good idea."