[Hermitian909]

Two things have made startups significantly less attractive than they were in the 90s:

1. A substantial fraction of successful exits are now acquisitions. If you have ever been a part of an acquisition you know that unless the acquired company is a unicorn it is unlikely that you will see anything unless you are a key member of personnel. I've seen this happen to friends at >100 companies.

2. Long timelines to public complicate things. Options, even on a 10 year timeline, may expire before you can reasonably exercise them. The lack of cash can hinder life plans (children, house) and incentivise you to bet big. Each round requires the org to once again execute. If I build play a key role in making a business worth 100 million, and we raise at a value of 2 billion and fail to get there, my stock might now be worth very little.

The E(V) at larger companies is awesome by comparison.

[nugget]

For point #1, it's the exit price that matters. Whether the exit takes the form of an acquisition or an IPO, is incidental. I've done both multiple times. Acquisitions tend to be faster, cleaner, and easier exits. IPOs are tough, and once public, you're often locked up.

>The E(V) at larger companies is awesome by comparison.

It's not just comp that's variable, but experience too. Fast-growing startups offer career opportunities that you'd rarely see at FANG. Even if your goal is to simply minimize risk and maximize upside, the optimal path is probably something like bouncing back and forth between FANG for the cash comp and fast-growing startups for the career acceleration.

Not to mention the type of people who thrive at early stage startups typically can't stand FANG environments, and vice versa.