OP performed labor at an agreed-upon rate. The hypothetical broke and failed founder should “take the loss”, even if it requires taking on further financial burdens.
Externalized risk is one of the most rampant and harmful moral hazards of this age.
It's not clear it's asinine: the cost of trying to recoup money from an entity that is completely out of money can very easily become not worth it.
That would be giving the owners a pass on the risk that should be inherent in starting a business venture at the expense of OP’s already-delivered labor.
I stand by my tone. That kind of risk shuffling is cancer to the whole realm of private ventures and contributes to general distrust of business as a means of organizing and motivating collective human action.
However the extent to which they should take this case is pretty wide.
At least the guy should ask for his wages.
Maybe he should insist on them if he needs it.
Should they sue the founders and get an lien on their houses? I don’t know.
The first two shouldn’t remove good faith or good feeling. The third means bridges burned.
But I also concede that, in some cases, the cost of recouping might not be worth it.