Tony, I think you're arguing with a strawman. Per the original article, if the CTO is bringing more to the table than you, then you get +5 for being CEO, and they get +5 for idea, and/or +15 for patent, and/or +50 for being so awesome they could get funded without you.
I see people disagree with IronYuppie (I do too - I don't think the CEO job is harder than the CTO job) but I'm not sure why it's getting downvoted.
By your formula, someone with a equal or barely-lesser contribution could have a greater equity share (CEO, idea). That's my gripe, boiled down. Don't think it's a straw man.
Ideally, it's close-- i.e. there is no ugly duckling. And where it's too close to call (i.e. you don't have a credible argument for why one person will have a greater contribution), I think erring on the side of almost-parity is the way to go, because stuff changes too fast and anticipating contribution is HARD. Today's shit-hot idea may be DOA in a month. Today's CEO may shift to VP Bizdev next year. Fundraising connections may come up dry when they are tapped. If any/all of that happens, then you have one guy saying, "Wait, he gets 65% of the company because of all of these contributions that really aren't working out. How non-awesome is that? And my good college buddy just asked me to jump into this NEW idea with 50% ownership... Hrm.".
Those are non-trivial risks for nearly-trivial (risk adjusted) dollar figures, IMO.
I see people disagree with IronYuppie (I do too - I don't think the CEO job is harder than the CTO job) but I'm not sure why it's getting downvoted.