VC funding means scoring big on a few winners. Investors become part owners. There are fund managers and limited partners providing the cash. They do not build the business, but are enabling, parasitic costs. It will in general be unfair - losers ride but can be killed, and winners make a killing.
Banks would fund low risk, if there is security/collateral. VCs fund risk. And that means that with partial ownership (dilution) - investors make it big year after year.
A venture capital firm makes money, about 20% of what it invests. There is a second parasitic loss involved - the actual person who puts in money as the limited partner. If dilution is 40% on a company that makes millions, it means millions year after year going to the limited partner for doing nothing.
Private equity is another parasite. It seems 4x, 20 internal rate of return .
Another option is a partnership. 
When you sell out, the economics may be quite unfair, unethical. Note investors need 20% return. That doesn't mean the founders get 80% - there could be many funders. And of what you create, many others are getting rich. It could easily be that you have 10% at the end . For example, Bezos owns 10% , and jobs owned 11%.
But it gets even more concentrated - ie, thems that gots, gets. Ex of Amazon - 1.1M workers, making $30k each . This makes it $33B of salaries. Net revenue was $20B in 22  so the investors make 70 cents to a dollar of employees. Close to 50%. Not bad. Not like it is 80% investors, 20% workers.
What about general electric? Apple?
GE - 200k employees, $5B net revenue. Salaries - 61k - thus $12B in salaries. Thus, workers make 66%, investors make 33%.
Black and Decker. $15.6B net sales. [ https://www.google.com/search?q=black+and+decker+net+reveue&oq=black+and+decker+net+reveue&aqs=chrome..69i57.5871j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8]. Net income $1.56B . 61k employees. $81k avg salary . $5B salaries. Around 80% goes to employees! Net income is the proverbial bottom line.