This seems to inherently assume a strong correlation between "talented" and "risk-averse". A startup is potentially far more valuable than working at a FAANG, e

This seems to inherently assume a strong correlation between "talented" and "risk-averse". A startup is potentially far more valuable than working at a FAANG, especially so if you are a founder. So, why ever work for anything other than your own company? And, even if the "talent" takes a job at FAANG, what stops them from having a 2-year turnover rate where they make some money and then go risk starting their own company, and if that fails then just go back to making a steady paycheck? The FAANG strategy for hiring talent seems to be something along the lines of: "Sure, not all talent will be risk-averse, but a (large) percentage of talent will be, and we can grab those risk-averse talented people with higher-salaries than smaller companies." In other words: if you are not a founder, relatively high-equity early employee, or a FAANG employee then you are game-theoretically either second-tier talent, really hate FAANG companies, and/or you are not actually aiming high enough.