I'm an advocate of even splits. IMO the logic behind having a dominant founder derives from classic corporate management where you have a boss and a team. I don't see that as a good baseline for a team of founders.
Better to own less of successful company than all of nothing.
Sometimes it's even funny, at a 2 day hacking/business event, you make something with 6 people, two of these people make 90+% of the product. 2 people just stand by the team the whole time barely contributing and 2 people (business) people, are greatly contributing to strategy.
At the end of the hacking event there is a talk about continuing with the project and starting something up, it is so obvious that it is almost not even brought up. People kinda evade the topic. Then somebody starts to talk about it and everybody quickly agrees that 50/50 split is the obvious fair way to start something.
I don't have to tell you this 'startup' didn't last that long :)