So your counterargument is that 1) there are firms that exist as part of the supply chain -- firms that, if they could not flip their services to bigger compani

So your counterargument is that 1) there are firms that exist as part of the supply chain -- firms that, if they could not flip their services to bigger companies -- would not exist, and that 2) there are smaller companies consisting of employees with built-to-flip careers. I don't understand why you draw this arbitrary distinction between paying someone a fraction of your future cash flows (through stock) versus paying them a stream of cash.