I appreciate the transparency about pay - that's something we need more of - but the underlying idea is... strangely anti-capitalist for what's supposed to be a startup. This seems more like the viewpoint of a co-op or non-profit than a for-profit startup.
Or at least it did, until I found this buried in paragraphs and paragraphs of text:
> As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk – and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth.
So they're still stratifying employees, but by equity, not cash comp. Likewise, they're still hiding information about the thing that is most likely to benefit the founders of the company more than its employees. If Oxide sells to $bigco for $1 billion, employees 1-5 might get $100 million each, and employee 100 might get less than that yearly "sustainable for everyone" salary.
How equitable and fair will that (for some positions, relatively low) cash compensation seem then?
I get the idea: Do the traditional startup thing, but instead of competing on cash, just make it clear everyone will make a living wage and should be in it for the equity. But if you do that and then aren't being transparent about what the equity is, you're not really being particularly transparent at all. You're just making a big splash.
All the other stuff about values, etc., is bullshit. The point of a startup is to get rich.
Or at least it did, until I found this buried in paragraphs and paragraphs of text:
> As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk – and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth.
So they're still stratifying employees, but by equity, not cash comp. Likewise, they're still hiding information about the thing that is most likely to benefit the founders of the company more than its employees. If Oxide sells to $bigco for $1 billion, employees 1-5 might get $100 million each, and employee 100 might get less than that yearly "sustainable for everyone" salary.
How equitable and fair will that (for some positions, relatively low) cash compensation seem then?
I get the idea: Do the traditional startup thing, but instead of competing on cash, just make it clear everyone will make a living wage and should be in it for the equity. But if you do that and then aren't being transparent about what the equity is, you're not really being particularly transparent at all. You're just making a big splash.
All the other stuff about values, etc., is bullshit. The point of a startup is to get rich.