Forgive my shear ignorance, but why would two original co-founders who are no longer active holding 0.5% each scare off investors and such?
To compare, think of it like a personal resume. If you're a developer applying for a development role but you took two years out of the last five to go teach English to kids in an emerging market nation where you coded on the side (and could show Github / other public repos) anyone taking the time would commend you for the activity. Someone rushing through reviewing resumes may toss yours on the floor.
You can structure your corporation in many ways. If the old co-founders were cool enough to give up their shares, they would be cool enough to, say, give the current founders proxy rights.
>"Why aren't they with you any longer?"
It's a 3 second answer if it actually comes up (and it wouldn't). Lots start-ups have "lingering" shareholders/founders who may or may not be part of the company. It just isn't a big deal.
A possibility, but certainly this is much simpler?
It prevents a minority shareholder from holding up or killing a deal.
It doesn't dilute investors. It dilutes you.
I'm not as understanding of your motives as others may be. You're lucky the other founders were really cool. The reality is that Ariel and Anton took on risk by being in the startup originally, and presumably put in a lot of work and effort towards your company - so it's completely fair and reasonable that they have something to show for it - no? Whether or not the current product looks like the original is immaterial.