Aligning employees' interests with the long-term interests of the company is really challenging.

A typical counterexample to compensating in proportion to equity performance is compensating in proportion to revenue or profit performance (i.e. something still related to market performance, but with fewer tangential variabilities).

But I don't think that switcheroo would have resulted in a different outcome, here?

I think, perhaps, the underlying issue is the cultural norm of lionizing revenue to the exclusion of all other corporate principles. In this case, it's not really the Sales person's fault. It's Jerry's manager, or Jerry's managers' manager, etc. – for allowing the feature-blind prioritization of revenue to fester.