This reads like a classic example of mathematical quackery. This same author also thinks calculus, which had been instrumental to all of modern science and technology, is flawed.
So far as I can see he never actually contends with the actual precise mathematical definitions of infinity, or of convergence in his calculus article.
While I can accept that mathematics may have some interesting foundational questions, the author has not developed an alternate solution that makes any predictions or provable statements that demonstrate an actual flaw in mathematics. It's all supposition and bullshittery.
I'm going to say that this is naive open source zealot bullshit.
Code signing is what is keeping the FBI out of the iPhone. It's how we will keep malicious trojans and other kinds of advanced persistent threats out of the ecosystem in the future.
If you think code signing is a bad idea, then you aren't thinking about the post Snowden security landscape.
Now, what most code signing systems fail on today is the ability to control which keys you trust. Ideally you should be able to manage trust delegation.
But, in the future, we will think of running unsigned code like we currently think of protocols like FTP, telnet and rsh - built for a simpler, more trusting era.
Rather than answer your question, I'll ask you a series of informative questions to help you find your answer yourself (this is useful for the next startup you work at).
* How much would someone with your skills make in terms of salary, bonus and stock at a large stable company inyourmarket (think IBM, Apple, Google, Amazon, Oracle, etc. -- basically any Fortune 500 that might consider hiring you)
* When do you think you'll be able to sell your shares (whether through an acquisition, IPO, private market sale, etc.)? Remember, vested shares are only valuable if someone will buy them.
* What do you think your company will be worth in the future? What will your share be worth? How does that compare with what your founders think it will be worth?
* Is your company willing to continue issuing shares to you in the future as part of a compensation plan, or is this a one-shot allocation?
* Finally, what's your risk tolerance? Are you okay making less than you could in a "soul-crushing big company job" (possibly a lot less) for the chance of a big pay day?
I'm going to ignore a lot of the other big/small tradeoffs around benefits and culture. But you should be thinking about these too.
Let me give you a concrete example. Let's imagine that Oracle would have hired you for $60k / year, with a 15% bonus plan, and 600 shares as restricted stock units vesting over a 4 year period. At current market prices, that works out to about $75k in total compensation per year before raises, market fluctuations, additional stock grants and high performance bonuses -- and, for well performing individuals, you can reasonably expect all of these things to be awarded you like clockwork at any healthy, respectable company.
Now, let's imagine that, 4 years after your start date, your company will be worth $50m and that you don't get any more stock. I'm guessing this company isn't big on bonuses (after all, it's a start up), but let's assume they average out to 10% over those 4 years. This, then, also works out to about $75k over that span. You'll probably have to fight and argue over every raise and additional stock grant unless your founders are amazing.
And that's the rub: most startups don't end up being worth $50m after 4 years. They are often (understandably) very poor about bonuses and salary increases. It often takes a lot more than 3 or 4 years to reach the point where the shares can be traded for money (if ever!)
Now, if your company hits it out of the park and is worth $500m, then that 0.2% sounds a whole lot better. But that's basically like hitting the lottery -- you shouldn't bet on it happening.
Similarly, if your company goes bankrupt, you get nothing for the shares except the memories and maybe a few t-shirts. And, unfortunately, you should absolutely expect this to be a possibility. Other possibilities include working for them for 7-10 years with the stock never becoming a tradable commodity and the company only being worth $20m or so.
Also, you're an early employee. The company will likely live or die by what you do. Your company should be viewing you as an investment with opportunity costs and expected returns. The opportunity cost of the shares is not too hard to compute (that's what I did above). The return is, in a sense, what the company ends up being worth.
I would go to your bosses with your version of these considerations in hand, and demand a plan that accounts for your concerns. And I would show them, with math, why anything else doesn't make good financial sense for you.