I understand where the 10 year exercise period came from and I can understand the arguments against it.
A solution I haven't seen put forward is a compromise between the common 90 day window and the 10 year window, which is to have an exercise period equal to the amount of time you were an employee. This discourages people from bouncing around jobs collecting equity but gives a reasonable timeframe in which to exercise if you do want to leave after putting 5 years into growing the company.
How does vesting solve that? Which would you rather have (giving a simple example of 1% options vested over 4 years) - 0.25% in 4 different companies or 1% in 1?
This is essentially the argument against 10 year exercise windows - it allows exactly the above scenario.
If your vesting cliff is 1 year, then people who job hop after 8 months get nothing. Thus discouraging people from bouncing around to collect equity because there is a minimum tenure needed to collect.
Just set the cliff to match your definition of "bouncing around jobs".
A solution I haven't seen put forward is a compromise between the common 90 day window and the 10 year window, which is to have an exercise period equal to the amount of time you were an employee. This discourages people from bouncing around jobs collecting equity but gives a reasonable timeframe in which to exercise if you do want to leave after putting 5 years into growing the company.