Issuing 10,000 options and not telling you how many options are outstanding is very very common for startups, unfortunately. I don't know how many times I've j

Issuing 10,000 options and not telling you how many options are outstanding is very very common for startups, unfortunately. I don't know how many times I've joined companies that listed 10,000 options and I was too dumb to question it. In many cases, it's because they don't want non-executive employees to be able to know certain financial details, including the valuation of the company. I wish this wasn't the case, but the reasons for it seem logical and in fact fair - it's just that many people assume this is a lot when it probably isn't. The downside is many people are apt to accept, thinking 10,000 in options is a "lot", and I've made that mistake in the past. In an A round startup, this number could easily be in the several millions of shares outstanding, and likely is. If it's gone through several funding rounds, it's likely even less. 10,000 in a C round is significantly less if they have divided the stock by 10x or more in the previous rounds. Executives could be pulling in whole percentages of the company, or multiples thereof, and one of the first few members of technical staff could basically be looking at a year's salary or less in payout if the company would sell in 5-8 years. The percentage of the companys that make it is also a factor. While the article focused on needing to stay at a company, it's fair to consider that the great majority of startups are going to fail or be very small acquisitions (asset deals, acqui-hiring, etc). In these positions, the VCs will get paid first, and there may not be much if anything left. Another possibility is the company is sold for small prices but the CEO could secure a very very nice deal to join the new company (plus bonuses), which has happened on more than one occasion. A VC only needs a small fraction of his portfolio to do big exits, so they make lots of bets. Stock is a huge gamble. I don't recommend "no stock, just cash", but don't ever let someone underpay you on hopes the stock event will happen. Stock is being used as a retention tool, and that's the design of it, unfortunately. I'd be much more in favor of equitable profit sharing as a retention tool - suppose a company decides to give away X% of it's profits back to employees forever, and this is done in a way where it isn't the CEO/leaders making all the money. Instead say in a 50 person company, 10% of the profits always go back to the people, and each person gets 1/50th. This also eliminates sales commission on large deals and makes everyone part of the deal (the whole company) profits - also no quarterly targets, personal bonus tiers, executive bonuses, or anything like that. As the company becomes more efficient, those numbers go up, and it keeps things simple.