GP's discussion was a mega acquisition; there's a lot more ability to setup retention grants for each individual on those.

Even on a mega ipo, there's some opportunity to make stock grants before or after the event.

In both cases, team size matters. If there's a budget for retention or $1B and founders get 90%, that leaves $100M for regular employees; if you've got thousands of people to retain, the payouts won't be large. With a team of 100, the payouts will be nice.

If it's really worthless, then what explains the unequal distribution of the equity? Clearly it's valued enough for people to be stingy with it.

I'm just not sure why you think junior level employee #20 deserves more than what he agreed to when he got hired. Clearly he was making a full salary, probably with benefits, that compensated him for his work. He took no risk whatsoever.

I'm sure if junior level employee #20 said, "I'll work for half price if you include a bit more equity" there would be a lot of companies that would accept. However clearly he didn't want to take that risk at the time, so why should he get the reward?

"I'm just not sure why you think junior level employee #20 deserves more than what he agreed to when he got hired."

I'm not saying that.

"However clearly he didn't want to take that risk at the time, so why should he get the reward?"

This assumes that was an option. Some places hold onto equity very tightly.

So go join a company that gives more equity. There are thousands of companies to choose from

Founders can pay themselves a salary without automatically giving away their equity.