yeah, given the pedigree of the founders, it seems the strategy should be rational, but the only framing that makes sense to me is that they saw no alternate path, e. g. they need $100M for their first real proof point. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, they believe the value of time is so acute that the would spend an additional 20% equity so that they could scale their team 9 months faster. No chances to pivot with that kind of launch... you will be ramping to an incredible burn rate before you have much in the way of a demo, much less a validated product. Still in this winner take all world... whose to say shooting the moon isn't the best bet? "wasting 20% equity to be 6 months a head of others" might be a winning strategy.