The best definition of a startup I've heard is "a temporary organization working together in search of a business model"

With that in mind, investors are investing in a temporary organization in search of a business model. Late state investors may invest after that temporary organization either has a business model or is about to establish one and really early investors may put there money in before any business model has been discovered. Whatever the case may be, it's an exploratory effort that investors are part of.

If the entrepreneurs are fully capable of building a sustainable business, but never discovered a sustainable business model, then the investors, as agents that both advise and help with issues like recruiting talent, are as culpable for any failure to achieve that goal. Founders are putting in their time at below market rates (an opportunity cost whereby they aren't participating in other potentially lucrative ventures) and investors are putting in their money (an opportunity cost where the money invested can't be applied to other lucrative ventures.

Both have a claim to the business model generated. Entrepreneurs pay for their claim with time. Investors do it with the money that enable the entrepreneur to put in that time.

Now, IMHO, where acquit-hires come into play and how they can be split up fairly is to divvy up the grants and benefits by who brought who into the organization.

If investors put dumb money into the organization to find a business model that was never found, they have very little they can claim. If however, you have smart investors with solid connections that contributed highly to the creation of the organization established, they could make a case that they contributed significantly in the value being purchased by the acquirer.

The fair thing to do would be to ascribe a significant portion of the bonuses and grants according to the golden handcuffs applied and to divvy up the rest of the pot among those people most responsible for creating the organization.

If I was responsible for 90% of the recruiting in my organization, I don't think it's fair for any investor to think they have some claim to that value that was largely generated via networking extra-temporary organization. If, however, one or more of my investors contributed a large portion of their social capital to bring talent to my business, they've invested a non-tangible in the business that they deserve to be compensated for.

Money is invested in a business model. If the business model succeeds, you deserve a part of that.

Social capital is invested to build an organization of talent. If you, whether entrepreneur or investor, contributed social capital to the business to attract that talent, you deserve a part of that. The only exception that is just that I can see would be where the startup paid well over the market rate to attract the talent. In this case the recruiting incentive used to grow the company was not the people, opportunity and problem being solved but simply cash exchanged for a mercenary activity. In this case money, and not social capital, contributed to the growth of a valuable organization, and investors could make claim to the returns.

My question is the following: Of all the acqui-hires we've seen in the past few years, how common is it for those teams to stay together as a smaller organization within the larger acquiring organization.

If teams generally don't stay together 6 months to a year after an acqui-hire, then the value created it not in the professional relationships (edges) of the acquired organization, but in the people (nodes). If the value is in the nodes, all the value belongs to the individual employees and not to the organization.