It's legitimate to point out the potential downsides. Even if you hope the startup you join will succeed and believe in its chances, plenty of promising companies fail (sometimes simply due to circumstances). Hedging your bets (or "hope for the best but plan for the worst") is absolutely something a lot of people want/do/"ask for".

Looking at the article the author bases their analysis on stock value growth of Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft - which are absolutely not typical/expected.

At least in my eyes: The downside risk is already so high in a startup that a marginal decrease is simply not worth the loss of the upside.

About 90% will fail. You should really be assuming that your options are worth basically zero. Basically zero ~= Basically zero with better downside protection.

For high performing tech companies - you absolutely don't want the loss of upside in the current market.

I think there is some legitimacy to this in a long-term company that experiences boom and bust cycles, though - things that come to mind for me are airlines, auto manufacturing, agriculture, etc.

The worst is : company failing or you getting laid off.

This downside protection is a crappy deal.

Yeah but with a 1 year vesting instead of 4 you may be able to cash out before the bubble bursts.

Vesting schedule is the same.

Did you think you have to wait 4y to get stock?

As far as I understand the article instead of getting 1/4 the stocks each year for 4 years they get it all at once, hence after 1 year you get 100% of the stock instead of 4. Is that not what was meant?

You get 100% of the stock worth 1y after 1y

Stripe, for example, gives out around 300k-350k per year for senior AVG.

Back then for 4y equity, 1y was worth around 250k initially.