Even though the thought expressed in the post is interesting and makes sense, but calling advisors as co-founders is stretching it. Co-founder, if any, will have more executive responsibilities than just making connections which is not the case with advisors. Whether involved more than once a month or not, advisors, in strict definition of advisor, do not provide any execution support.
That's just your limited view of an advisor and one reason I suggest we call them something else. Why can't they provide "execution support". I've had several advisors work in that capacity.
I will prefer having co-founders instead of advisors in that case. I have advisers only because I need some one to always think about what we are doing and how we are doing it in a very objective and third-party sense. Once some one gets their hand dirty in doing it, it becomes very difficult to remain objective about it.
Using you advisors as consultants who are paid with options sounds more like what he is suggesting. Might be a good idea for some businesses.