1) How does this not degenerate a zero-sum game where the people who can subtly undermine their peers relatives to themselves succeed?
2) Why does expensify need 10X programmers? Here are some questions to help define where a 10X programmer might benefit them
Q: Are they doing something that is pushing the boundaries of computer science? A: No, they make it easier to submit expense reports.
Q: Are they trying to extract the last drop of performance from a computer system - for example games, HPC, HFT? A: No, they make it easier to submit expense reports.
Q: Do they need to create massive systems that can serve a billion people and thus even "simple" programming problems can be difficult due to scale. A: No, they make it easier to submit expense reports.
Q: Are they creating tools such as new languages, libraries, operating systems / environments to massively increase the productivity of computer programmers. A: No, they make it easier to submit expense reports.
Q: Are they trying to tackle hard problems like making secure computing ubiquitous? A: No, they make it easier to submit expense reports.
Q: Do they support other companies and help other companies solve difficult problems by providing expert consultation. A: No, they make it easier to submit expense reports.
Before a company decides it needs 10X programmers, they should answer the Jeff Dean question: "If Jeff Dean came to work at my company, what current project do I have that I would put him on, and would he be bored?"
Too many companies it seems decide they want 10X programmers (without paying 10X salaries) and then use this to justify poor treatment of their current workers.