I think as far as credentials go, it's pretty simple: (market capitalization of the company) * (the level of responsibility given at the company).
The smaller the company is, the higher the position has to be to make the credentials stand out.
For instance, being a recent graduate at FAANG is probably more or less equal to being a pre-A series startup CTO, if there are no other entries in the CV.
I didn't downvote, but I take issue w/ the example you cite. In terms of credentials & signalling, recent grads taking jr software engineer / entry-level positions in FAANG are not comparable to startup founders.
That said, at more senior levels, your model fits more closely. A mid-level Alphabet product manager is likely to have been a founder or C-level exec in a startup or two.
I was referring to early stage startup founders, which are very likely to fail in the first 12-18 months. After a startup receives VC funding or becomes profitable, of course the credentials of its founders stand above the entry-level positions at FAANG. Otherwise, they might just signal a lack of fair judgement.
I don't think it's so much "credentials" as opposed to being tied to a well-respected co + having experience navigating a co through hyper-growth + risk taking attitude.
I am an alum of one of these cos, and I suspect the makeup of the average employee as far as risk-taking goes (and again experience seeing a company go from nothing to $20b+) is much higher than an equally competent employee at, say, Microsoft or Amazon. There's a level of self-selection involved here.
The smaller the company is, the higher the position has to be to make the credentials stand out.
For instance, being a recent graduate at FAANG is probably more or less equal to being a pre-A series startup CTO, if there are no other entries in the CV.