The percentage is actually more relevant to what we're discussing here, because it represents the gain from the employee's known starting point when they were hired. If they were only offered a measly number of options on being hired, well they can just decide to bail - it's the percentage gain that is the unknown and variable part of the equation.

> Why would you expect options to pay big for a non-unicorn?

I think the idea is that there should be a good swath of successful startups between "failed" and "unicorn". Indeed, the whole name unicorn came about because they used to be incredibly rare. So the parent is really asking "If you were in a moderately successful startup, did you get anything out of your equity?"

Unicorns are startups with private valuations over $1bn, but I don’t know anyone that wouldn’t be happy with 1% of a $100M non-unicorn exit

Unicorn means the startup is as rare as a unicorn. Taking that as your benchmark for success is extremely unhealthy.

I think the generally accepted definition (as I understand it) is any startup with a private valuation over $1bn. So there is a lot of room for very successful companies that are not unicorns.

I think there's been a bit of an inflation when talking about unicorns. It just means any startup that is valued at >= $1bn

A lot of nitpickers commenting on this, but ignore them. Your basic thesis is correct: the ultimate valuation of the company matters way more than anything else. As engineer #100, say, the stock granted to you as a % of the options pool is negligible: there are effectively no differences in the ownership fraction no matter what company you choose. Whether you choose a company that grows into 50 billion vs 5 billion makes all the difference.

If you choose a company that ends up achieving a 500 million valuation as engineer #100, then your time will be wasted, massively. You will end up making no or -ve amounts of money.