The point that this article makes is that founding engineers shouldn't accept 1% equity. I think it's more nuanced. I've worked in startups for a long time and

The point that this article makes is that founding engineers shouldn't accept 1% equity. I think it's more nuanced. I've worked in startups for a long time and my experience is that early engineers are more motivated by the 0 to 1 aspect that by equity. Most of them leave within a few years and do not buy vested equity anyway. I think the experience and exposure to new tech, new people and the professional growth is what makes it worthwhile for more junior folks. I agree that for the top engineers that doesn't make any sense.