First, this is a pointless debate: there's a Russian proverb saying "Don't divide the skin of a bear you haven't killed yet" i.e., starting a company that even

First, this is a pointless debate: there's a Russian proverb saying "Don't divide the skin of a bear you haven't killed yet" i.e., starting a company that even gives you the option of liquid equity or profit you can live on is difficult and you'd be lucky to do be in the position to choose. Most don't get to either routes (they fail); others have to choose one over the other due to the nature of their product and market e.g., business software requires long sales cycles and a pipeline that takes many of these cycles to build (before you have any significant traction or equity), "generic" consumer Internet on other can mean sub $1.0 CPMs, requiring immense scale before profit (at which point a "for eye balls" sale sounds lucrative). I also don't think the understands what fuck you money means. To some it may mean "serial enterprise" (and these people have generally built world changing companies as well as invested in others). To others that means enough money to develop your own Lisp dialect at your own pace instead of spending most of your day working only on the sort of software others would pay for (that is, freedom). They're both noble and respectable goals. People who are interested in money for the sake of material wealth typically aren't technology entrepreneurs. I'd argue even Ellison and Gates would be technologists even if it didn't make them wealthy.