Is it? If founders were getting only 10% of ownership which would be further diluted in following funding rounds, how many of them would take the risk of starting a company? On the other hand, if early employees were not getting any equity, how many of them would apply anyway because they need the job / or want to gain experience and build their network with limited risk? (not saying that they should not be getting equity). If 1% seems unfair, they can start their own company, then they would quickly find out that the difficulty / risk / stress / responsibility is an order of magnitude larger and equity reflects that.

Many founding engineers do later start their own company after they see how much of a better deal the founder can get (mentioned in the article).

Foinding engineers that need the job and would take it without any equity aren’t the difference-makers I’m talking about.

Yeah. Founding engineers are drinking the koolaid narrative from the founders. I know I have been in the past.