I like the general concept, but I think framing it as a small number of discrete tokens isn't quite right. I'd treat the whole thing in terms of debt and risk. Using "non-boring" technology [0] is really just subtracting some amount from your balance. You don't want your balance to go too negative, but carrying some debt is sometimes fine. And some risky bets might turn out to have a huge ROI!

The amounts clearly aren't discrete. Writing your entire app on a new language runtime might be very risky (and also might have large potential ROI!), but choosing a new email provider might not be (random example, but presuming that you can swap out providers fairly easily).

[0] My bigger complaint is really about the vagueness of even deciding what is "boring." How does a new technology transition from being "non-boring" to being "boring"? Apparently that requires a lot of people to ignore this article's advice for a long time, until we collectively decide that those people have had good enough results to consider that technology "boring."

From TFA:

“The nice thing about boringness (so constrained) is that the capabilities of these things are well understood. But more importantly, their failure modes are well understood.”

Boring technology is that where you have an extremely small amount of “I didn’t think that was possible” events occurring. As it states, there’s always some; SQLite’s recent WAL-Reset bug that Tailscale discovered is a perfect example of that.

Actually, on the subject of databases, I think they all break that rule. I’m a DBRE, and can readily state there are an insane number of footguns with all of them. It’s just that, relative to other options, they’re as good as you’re going to get. Also in their defense, nearly every footgun I’ve ever encountered was documented, it’s just that the docs are incredibly dense, and sometimes a bit vague.