Yeah, it's commonly known as sweat equity. You do the work, and other people provide the money, then you split up the equity accordingly to the relative value of the two different types of contributions (I mean that's oversimplying but it's generally accurate).
If you're unsure where your next meal is coming from, you may still have a great idea and the ability to execute on it. If someone gives you enough money that you have the leeway to do those things, then everyone wins.
Obviously venture capital isn't welfare... no one has begun to suggest that it is. VC puts money into companies in exchange for equity because those companies need money. If the companies didn't ever need money, there would be no need for VC. The idea that VC should only fund people who already have plenty of capital available to them fundamentally misunderstands the entire model.
If you're unsure where your next meal is coming from, you may still have a great idea and the ability to execute on it. If someone gives you enough money that you have the leeway to do those things, then everyone wins.
Obviously venture capital isn't welfare... no one has begun to suggest that it is. VC puts money into companies in exchange for equity because those companies need money. If the companies didn't ever need money, there would be no need for VC. The idea that VC should only fund people who already have plenty of capital available to them fundamentally misunderstands the entire model.