Interesting theory though, that a simplistic caricature of Stoicism is invoked to justify immoral behaviour. Pity the article didn't seriously investigate that.
As opposed to:
"I should try to change the outcome of self-worth destruction from my billion-dollar idea, even if I think I can't or it might cost me my wealth."
Again, I am not saying that this is Stoicism. This is the misuse of Stoic principles, by declaring that wealth-generating activities as "things that can't change" and then applying Stoicism to bear the burden of the resulting harm that they "can't change".
Second, I see the necessity for concerted (political) action to right societal ills; I wonder what Stoicism has to say about that. Many Stoics were in politics or academia, so it does not strike me as an isolationist position.
Many, if not most, Silicon Valley innovations over the past ten years have led directly to human suffering and misery. Facebook has inflicted widespread psychological damage to humanity's self-worth. Loot boxes introduced gambling to young children. YouTube recommendations promote racist and fascist content to adults and machine-generated content to children.
I don't agree that this is a correct implementation of Stoicism, but from the decade I lived in SFbay, the following accurately models how I have seen many tech founders warp Stoicism into a way to avoid confronting their immoral behavior:
Step 1: Have an idea that's profitable, at the cost of inflicting suffering on others.
Step 2: Inflict that suffering, while twisting Stoicism to make "suffering" seem a virtue.
Step 3: Profit from the results of your now-virtuous efforts, free of moral consequences from the 'virtue' you inflicted.