Equity is not money, and employee-owned equity often isn't easy to convert to money, especially in non-public firms (but even in public firms, employees are often bound by insider-trading rules.)

Of course, costs associated with equity-based compensation are real costs to the firm, independent of the fact that equity is not money.

Stock-based compensation isn't the same as cash. It has both costs and benefits, but saying it is "toxic" seems overreach.

I believe user addicted was trying to say is that companies are attempting to treat a large portion of compensation paid out to employees as somehow not material or meaningful, and that practice is toxic.

They are obviously not the same thing (as the comment about trying to pay rent, for example, tries to point out). But at the same time, a lot of companies try to pass them off as not meaningful which I don't think is helpful even if toxic may be too strong a term. (SNAP's figures do that literally, giving us NM for change % numbees affected by the stock compensation).