Why would he do that when he'd make more on the actual token sale?
I've never heard of Enigma before today, hell I still don't have a clue what they are going to actually do besides an ICO, but I know they have just implemented best practices security and it's a safe bet to make money. I think PG calls this a submarine.
This is very clever. When the theft loss is dismal compared to the money raised, it only gets more press and more people buying the coin!
... that is controlled by the founders and could presumably be used for whatever they'd like. The usual approach is to create two companies. One a shell to own the ICO itself, and the second a tech services company that does development for the shell corp.
So it ends up something like:
"We definitely need the expertise of ICO founder Mr. X. Let's hire his consulting company to update the CSS on our web page at $1,000/hour..."
They do get paid salaries, but undergo audits... To make sure that the 10 million dollar round didn't go straight to the CTO's Bahaman yaht fund. These audits are typically not done by the founders.
With an ICO, all bets are off. There's no reporting requirements, the founders hire their own bookkeepers, and the equity holders have no rights with respect to the governance of the firm.
It's certainly possible to structure an ICO in such a way that token holders will get board seats, proper auditing, etc, but I've yet to see one that is.