Employee vs. Founder: what do you think is better?

It's contextual, I guess. If you are someone just entering the professional realm, getting in as an employee is better to learn things first. But if you have enough experience and a good idea with great potential then maybe you can explore the opportunity. It's always the high risk high reward concept with being a founder. Things can always go south.

For the freedom and autonomy to become the best version of my self

Still working on it to become FT as a founder and consultant.

Running a company is in fact a hard thing to do. I started Menlo Park Patents and several other tech. companies. In the beginning we were only receiving about 3-5 clients per month which is challenging from a financial perspective. Now we are at the point where we sign 1 new client per day that has a new invention. I can say that in the beginning it is very hard. Challenges will come through out the lifetime of the company but it is WAY more rewarding than being a employee.

Both options have their pros and cons. However, for me, the pros of being a founder outweigh the cons.

If you have the spirit and the funds to be a founder, it's much more rewarding than just being an employee.

Of course, being a founder is really great. But not everyone can do it and it's not always possible. Sometimes it's good to be an employee temporarily, to learn teamworking skills and pick up new things.

not everyone can be a founder its a lot of pressure and work with lot of uncertainty

Million dollar question, Alessio. I actually think for most employees (especially based in US) you can make more money as an employee vs. founder. Of course, there are wild exits etc. but overall being a founder is a scrappy existence for many many years. My friends still make $300k + at FANGS and that's hard to match as a founder...