The main mistakes that junior engineers make when they accept the role of CTO is to think it's a 100% technical job. It's not, especially when you have fewer than 30 employees.
The CTO title is pretty meaningless unless the company either has > 30 employees or has at least one successful product.
Becoming a CTO of a company that can afford to actually pay you a salary, is tougher. Now, you probably need a solid track record of achievement, because they can afford to be choosy. Maybe even choosy enough to just make you "SVP of Engineering" instead of CTO. They'll want you to have shipped products you played a leading role in building from the ground up, to be able to build and lead an engineering organization, and to have very strong business sense. But now you've got the financial security of a salary and the tremendous upside of a founder's equity stake.
Becoming a CTO of a company that's actually growing is even harder, because you actually have to be competent enough to have led that company from some venture crazy enough to take a chance on you to real traction (at least on the investment front) and success. This really is the hard part, and I think that's what makes the author's perspective really valuable.
So to recap, the OP was an ex-Googler, who had been an early stage engineer at a funded startup which got a pretty massive exit. Who wouldn't want this person as a CTO? :)
(Disclosure - I know Ian, the author of the article, and a few Artillery employees)