From the perspective of the writer it reads more like "this is what happens when you give someone 50% of a company for simply writing the code." At least one side seems to have gotten something wrong...

I have found that people who think the idea is worth half the company are usually so irrational that they make really bad decisions about their contributions to the firm later on.

Companies like this can't thrive if the scales are not balanced in terms of ownership, labor, and results. Animosity and resentment brew and people get selfish and defensive and it all breaks down.

It appears that is what has happened in the fundable case. Perhaps the programmer did not feel like the business guy was pulling his weight. Maybe for him, the upside of working all the time and fixing all the bugs in the code and making the site reliable weren't worth whatever he was getting from the deal. Maybe he wanted the business guy to spend some money on more programmers or maybe the solution was more reliable infrastructure and it wasn't something the programmer could fix with more code.

Who knows. I just know that from the tone, it isn't good and lots of users of fundable are left in the dark now. Sad.