It reduces anxiety. Say you are slightly unhappy at your current job. On a normal stock plan, you might start feeling that "golden handcuffs are tying me to this company", which makes you feel even worse about your position, and might actually precipitate you leaving.

Now, consider this policy instead. You'd get a feeling of "I could leave if I really wanted to, nothing is tying me to this place". You get a greater feeling of agency, of personal freedom. That relaxes you, and you feel more comfortable staying with the company.

It would make their offers more appealing to prospective employees with limited capital.

The employer does not benefit from having an employee hanging around just because they can't afford to exercise their options. If they want to leave but can't because they have this huge potential for loss hanging over them does the company really benefit from having them there when they don't want to be?

> What argument is there for this policy against the employer, besides it's a nice thing to do?

You don't get stuck with an unmotivated employee who has checked out but can't access his options in liquid form.

This is not an infrequent problem in startups. The folks who "storm the bastions" early on often do not have the skills nor the desire to be a "well-behaved corporate citizen" for IPOs and such.

The employer has to weigh two options:

- people will be less encouraged to leave with the current standard of expiring options.

- people who have checked out mentally will not be forced to stay with the company for financial reasons.