No, I'm not some sort of Kool-aid drinking acolyte. But ultimately, I'm trying to do the same thing - to have fun and do what I find fulfilling, at the expense of considerably faster and more lucrative routes to making more money - so I can appreciate their general angle.
I'm not sure what's not to like about that. The real question is about what those 3 years were like. If they kind of enjoyed them, that's just gravy.
(Of course, I'm aware of Survivor's Bias here. Not everyone gets bought for $170m.)
No, they didn't. A substantial chunk of that money is undoubtedly going to their investors.
This notion that working on a fulfilling business can meet all of a person's needs is false.
Working on something fulfilling, for money is good. Having the option of doing something fulfilling that doesn't need to make money is better.
So, back to the OP's point: FU money is better than a happy income (depending on what you have to do to get to the FU stage).
Really, your question could be raised in response to virtually any person or entity with a clearly identifiable ideological stance of which they are frequent exponents. Just about anyone with a philosophical disposition and/or a discursive character - a tendency toward narration - is a candidate for, "Why do you keep saying what you think all the time?"
I guess it's because that's what intelligent people or groups of them who conceptualise themselves to have some sort of intellectually coherent purpose do.
Only nerds -- and people with no persuasive skills (or influence) -- think that saying something "the right way," once, is productive.
If you're not thinking about these things all the time when you're reading things, you're not getting maximum usefulness out of them.
It's not just what people say, or what people read, but WHY.