In what could have been a 50/50 split, Bezos walked away with 100% of their Washington Post and Blue Origin interests and 75% of their Amazon shares and 100% of their Amazon voting rights. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeff-bezos-finalizes-di...
What was by far the most expensive divorce in history was actually heavily weighted in Bezos' favor as far as divorces go.
Partners that sacrifice their education or careers to raise children or manage a household should definitely be compensated in a divorce such that they can land on their feet and are set up for success post-partnership, but for entrepreneurs, a 50/50 splits puts even founders with majority voting rights in danger of losing their companies.
It's easy to justify Bezos' wealth after transforming eCommerce, shipping, cloud computing and more. It's harder to justify Scott's $38B ($1.5B per year of marriage) when comparing her to other partners or mothers. I could see taking a partner's past (or projected) earning potential and compensating that amount. Let's say Scott gave up what reasonably could have been a $500k / year job, that would be $12.5M + 25 years compound interest in the divorce. The value she gave up for the sake of the partnership has been restored and the value Bezos created has been preserved. If there's a divorce between two partners who are also business partners, then 50/50 makes a lot more sense.