The investors being screwed isn’t guaranteed, at least in regards to the worst case screw job. We simply do not know the exact terms of the Epic deal, or how Fig will treat the Epic deal. It could be considered as non-sharable revenue, or it could be considered as sharable. (Fig itself takes a cut from “sales receipts”, so Fig at least has some incentive to not ignore potential revenue.)
The year-long store exclusive itself is another issue, as Fig deals generally offer revenue share for a time-limited period. This too may not be quite as bad as it initially appears. While other games seemed to have opted for 18 month time limits, the Fig invest page for Phoenix Point says it has a 3 year time limit. So investors should still see two years worth of Steam sale revenue.
There are some investor advantages as well, though. Increased profits from the Epic store taking a significantly lower than 30% cut will get passed on to investors; even if the game sells fewer copies, each copy will earn a bit more.
This all becomes irrelevant if the game manages to sell enough to hit the revenue share money cap before the time limit is reached. (The money cap is 3 times the investment. I believe that includes Fig’s cut as well, so the maximum investors can earn would be a bit below that figure, but that is irrelevant to this thread.)
I found the SEC circular for Fig’s Phoenix Point offering. I’d missed it before because the links are buried in the Invest page for a game. (I couldn’t even find a direct link to the Invest page, I had to go to the Phoenix Point campaign page and then add “invest/” to the html address.)
Skimming the SEC circular, it seems to be focused on game sales as revenue.