So essentially you are saying, it is every investor's moral obligation to hand money to Kay with no chance of ever getting it back in hopes that maybe someday, the last equity they receive in exchange is worth something.
The same basic concepts that you love to describe are lacking substantially in rational reality. Under your misguided concepts, early FB investors should receive nothing as the company lost money prior to profitability. The same way with Twitter etc although they are not even profitable yet. Most tech companies lose money for a long time, sure. But their capital structures were not set up to screw the first money in even though, first money in was the riskiest. But, paid off the best. If we went by normal start-up procedure here, reality is, Kay would have never received a second round of funding and would have gone bust given that there was nothing to justify putting more money in for a private equity investor. First round investors would have lost but that would have been it.
Tech startups are born and die daily. The difference here is that ECDC remains on life support where in the normal startup world, it would have died. Which, is fine as long as the small investor wants to subsidize it.
The misguided way you rationalize the way Kay has gone about raising capital on a continuing basis does oddly enough like the way I would imagine he personally rationalizes it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
