I don't think the OP doesn't understand this, I think hes simply arguing that the person putting up the money to do amazing things should get less of a return than the person DOING amazing things. Unfortunately that is not the case at the moment.
Amazing person doing amazing things has an option to not take the money and have 100% of the upside of his amazingness.
What people seem to forget is that it's about risk.
VC investing is high risk. For every 10 investments, 1 is wildly profitable and the other 9 are failures or low returns.
For that reason the ROI for that 1 out of 10 success cannot be "fair" by your metric - VC has to make enough to cover the 9 losses and some profit.
What the amazing person gets from the deal is knowing that even in the likely 90% case of failure, he won't sink in debt to fund his work.
Other systems can be envisioned: for instance, a basic income or a negative income tax would remove much of the risk that individual programmers, inventors and tinkerers face when trying to pursue their visions.