[bww]

> Because we see equity as part of total compensation, we believe employees should receive equity as it’s earned — every quarter.

This reads to me like someone looked at the data and discovered that almost everybody who stays employed for a quarter goes on to stay for a year. So they decided to try to juice some marketing value out of a policy change that makes no functional difference to anyone.

Why else would they choose to have equity vest quarterly instead of with each pay period? Or monthly, which is already typical after the cliff? If you believe equity is part of total compensation why does it need a different schedule at all?

[gopalv]

> Why else would they choose to have equity vest quarterly instead of with each pay period?

This makes sense for reduced paperwork if the company is buying back 28% of the shares to pay taxes instead of selling it to the market to pay the taxes - the company can reduce the open market sale on vesting days, but keep it as a single event within the quarter (advance tax payment per quarter).

[davidlee1435]

Is this the only reason why we can’t have biweekly vests? This sounds like something solvable with technology, no?