Tech has a bad habit of conflating comp/prestige with skill. I have no doubt the OP is quite good at what they do, but you not being where OP is does not therefore imply you don't have skill.
Unfortunately the tech world is not really a meritocracy.
When I look at my own circle of technical people the most incredible ones from a pure technical ability are divided between working at FAANG making 500k+ and working a relatively unknown companies making ~200K or less. One of the most mindbendingly brilliant people I know is working in relative obscurity, known very well only among other people that are top in the field, but their resume looks very ordinary compared to their behind the scenes contributions to major projects.
Managing a career in tech is largely independent from technical skills and abilities. I have met a shocking number of people making lots of money at prestigious institutions that are "meh" as far as technical ability goes (of course there's some great ones as well), and have met plenty of brilliant people working relative obscurity.
The success is largely a function of both background (Brown does beat a "no name EU university") and personal desire to have a prestigious career. There is a lot of self promotion going on in this piece, in fact the OP has already convinced you that they might be just a wildly better person than you. If they can convince you they are this amazing, then they also can convince the leadership team at a start up. But do recognize that their skill demonstrated so far is only in convincing you of this.
There is more to being a great tech employee than just being 'brilliant' at the hard skills. Soft skills are just as important, and play a role behind why I have been promoted more than peers who surpass my skills ten-fold. Some people also don't want to be in management.
We all have different trajectories and choices. This comment makes it seem like if you aren't a technical wizard then you might as well be useless. This is not reality
Unfortunately the tech world is not really a meritocracy.
When I look at my own circle of technical people the most incredible ones from a pure technical ability are divided between working at FAANG making 500k+ and working a relatively unknown companies making ~200K or less. One of the most mindbendingly brilliant people I know is working in relative obscurity, known very well only among other people that are top in the field, but their resume looks very ordinary compared to their behind the scenes contributions to major projects.
Managing a career in tech is largely independent from technical skills and abilities. I have met a shocking number of people making lots of money at prestigious institutions that are "meh" as far as technical ability goes (of course there's some great ones as well), and have met plenty of brilliant people working relative obscurity.
The success is largely a function of both background (Brown does beat a "no name EU university") and personal desire to have a prestigious career. There is a lot of self promotion going on in this piece, in fact the OP has already convinced you that they might be just a wildly better person than you. If they can convince you they are this amazing, then they also can convince the leadership team at a start up. But do recognize that their skill demonstrated so far is only in convincing you of this.