Yes, to be clear, I'm a founder. All of my team whose salaries are in that range have better stock arrangements. I didn't think the point of the argument was

Yes, to be clear, I'm a founder. All of my team whose salaries are in that range have better stock arrangements. I didn't think the point of the argument was whether the comp package was competitive. It was about comparing salary investment to an investor's investment. I just think the argument is flawed. Really, the driving point is that an investor puts in all money up front at the immediate valuation. An employee puts minimal money in daily with the option to leave anytime, while they have day to day knowledge (hopefully) of the health of the company. The author seemed to be arguing that the investment of salary wasn't being valued at what an investor receives. But they ignored all kinds of factors, such as the time over which the salary is "invested", and the fact that the investor may invest time and other resources, while the employee is likely to invest only time. Just having certain investors gets you other investors, gets you press, gets you all kinds of things. Very few employees get you the same things. They get you hard work. It's valuable. But the salary forfeited is just one very small component. Trying to convince employees that they should think of their $50k as the same as a $50k angel investment is leading them astray. [Edit] All of this being said, yes, everyone who takes stock in lieu of pay takes risks. Employees should almost certainly treat options as icing on the cake, and expect nothing from them. Then, be pleasantly surprised if they get a return.