The problem Chamath is highlighting is not that the founders are cashing out. Or that early employees are not getting cash -- everyone with vested common stock gets a proportional amount of the cash.
The big difference is that since the founders aren't selling stock, they aren't being diluted, so the employees with unvested stock don't get more of the company.
Basically, vested common gets paid, common doesn't get diluted at all, unvested common gets relatively screwed (they'd own more of the company if it were a secondary sale).
Of course, dividend vs secondary also affects the investors' price, but I can't see Chamath making such a stink about a simple matter of price.
The big difference is that since the founders aren't selling stock, they aren't being diluted, so the employees with unvested stock don't get more of the company.
Basically, vested common gets paid, common doesn't get diluted at all, unvested common gets relatively screwed (they'd own more of the company if it were a secondary sale).
Of course, dividend vs secondary also affects the investors' price, but I can't see Chamath making such a stink about a simple matter of price.