That seems highly optimistic.
This seems to be a common pattern in finance, where one party tries to shed all their risk cheaply.
They're fine with us all having worthless stock together.
What I am getting at is that taking equity means getting a lawyer to oversee the business terms. Going into business with someone who doesn't value the long term success of those with whom they are in business is a bad idea in my opinion. It's better to hang out with people I trust.
This can turn out to be worth more than either the stock or your salary but that's a long game and one with even less guarantees.
Still, I'm pretty sure that very few people that were on board with one of the bigger SV successes of the last 2 decades are going to complain about their pay-day, whereas for everybody whose company did not make it it hardly matters how much stock they got. And that's really where these founders miss the boat: they should be happy to share a sizable chunk of what is essentially worth nothing. They are essentially already busy with their exits when they should be building a company and that alone is a good reason to avoid those companies.
Shares that signify that the owners want a person to help run the company are different than shares as a form of payment. There's nothing wrong with either so long as everyone understands which it is. If it's compensation, then it's mostly a distraction from evaluating the job offer. The ringside seat to a rocket-ship ride comes with or without shares.
If the equity is important, then it should have some chance of producing fuck-you-money at liquidation. 0.05% is only fuck-you-money if there's a Google IPO size liquidation and there's been no dilution ($11,500,000 @ $23billion). That ain't significantly more likely to happen to a software developer than a chef.