That's not analogous, because you take stock options as compensation for not taking a market-rate salary and for accepting the risk inherent in working for a st

That's not analogous, because you take stock options as compensation for not taking a market-rate salary and for accepting the risk inherent in working for a startup. The stock isn't a bonus - it's a part of the total compensation package that is negotiated when the employee is hired. I'm going to accept $Xk/year because I'm getting Y% of the company in stock options, and I believe that the company has what it takes to make it big and for those stock options to be worth above and beyond what I'm giving up in salary and stability for the years that it takes to get there. Furthermore, if you hire someone whose skills become unnecessary, you just lay them off. You don't keep them on board and try to renegotiate them down to a lesser compensation. Here's another analogous scenario: Imagine that you are hired under a contract that says "We don't have the cash on hand today to pay you full market rate today, so we're going to pay you $X per month (which is significantly below market rate), plus $250k bonus at the end of each full year that you're working for us, up to $1m over 4 years, assuming the company lasts that long". Two years pass, and they come back and say "You know what? We decided we don't want to pay you your remaining $500k in promised compensation over the next 2 years. Forfeit that part of your compensation package, or we're going to fire you." You accepted the original compensation deal because the year-end bonuses were adequate compensation for the monthly pay cut you were taking. Stock options aren't just icing handed out on top of already perfectly-acceptable contracts just because.