* They have an opinion on every subject, and express one in every discussion ("leadership")
* For any proposed task, they can give a list of plausible-sounding reasons why it should not be done ("technical expertise")
* Nobody challenges them because doing anything that sounds even a little bit like a challenge results in you getting shouted at ("respected by their peers")
Words in parentheses are what management sees.
Every time I have seen a case where these people have persisted, it has been because a clique of them back each other up and the rest of the people in the company are essentially docile. Every competent engineer who finds themselves in this scenario then discovers that they are (a) outnumbered, and (b) able to find a better job somewhere else, so that's what happens.
I've not met a single individual whose contributions were so amazing to make up for their toxic personality. Most all of the toxic people I've worked with have had poor productivity, precisely as a function of their toxicity.
Fractional (1/10) workers, at best.
10x workers, to me, are by definition non-toxic.
Certainly, there are developers who fit the mold of what you're talking about. I'm not suggesting that all toxic developers are 10xers. But the ones to really fear hiring are the ones who produce lots of code while they corrode your organization.
If that's true, then they are not "10x developers". Being super-productive, but only by yourself in a vacuum, is next to useless to any company with more than 1 employee.
There's another important fallacy.
From the viewpoint of a 10x worker, the /10 worker is toxic.
From the viewpoint of a /10 worker, the 10x worker is toxic.
The net result was there was never a stable team to get anything significant done. The project never did release anything. Needless to say they blamed everybody else apart from themselves. The last I heard, they did two more projects and met the same fate.