It looks a problem peculiar to Seattle as there are not many choices of hyper-growth companies. I can't imagine the same dilemma in the bay area, where one can switch from one promising company to another every week from weeks.
Smarter folks have just gone for the one or two year cliffs, this is one of the reasons “job hopping” is looked down on for high skilled workers and attributed to attitude and not the companies’ failed promises. Obviously not keeping people is painful for growth too, but it’s still a very one sided power dynamic.
Four year cliffs are much better for employees. Shorter cliffs will cost people a lot of money if the valuation shoots up.
Can you maybe give me an example, or something concrete to root your statement in?
Some companies are also doing one year grants instead of four year grants, like Stripe. That's costing employees a lot of money.