Doesn't it seem like kind of a dick move to give no equity to any of the 75 employees?
It's more of dick move to hang worthless equity as a carrot in front of people who don't know any better. Salaries have no vesting periods, no dilution[1], and are presented in cash.
[1]: Outside of inflation :)
1. Startups face high frictional costs when selling their equity; providing equity grants along with lower salaries may help to avoid cash-flow problems arising from the inefficiency in the market.
2. In a early-stage startup with inexperienced employees, providing equity grants can remove much of the valuation risk from employees' wages; if they do exceptionally good work, they'll automatically be compensated more by virtue of the increased value of their equity. (This also provides an argument for vesting cliffs: If an employee does exceptionally poor work, they can be fired before the cliff and their compensation is effectively reduced to match the quality of the work they performed.)
3. Psychological biases result in people working irrationally hard for companies which they feel that they "own", even if their ownership share is extremely small.
4. In some cases there may be income tax arbitrage advantages.
Lots of people join companies on bad terms either because they don't realize the terms are bad or because they're desperate for any kind of income. That doesn't absolve the company of any blame for mistreating its workers. (I'm not necessarily suggesting that PoF was actually giving bad terms, it's possible they were paying amazing salaries)
I'd say giving equity to employees when you have no clear interest in exiting, is a dick move.