[mmcclure]

> Some will say that we should be talking about equity, not cash compensation. While it’s true that startup equity is important, it’s also true that startup equity doesn’t pay the orthodontist’s bill or get the basement repainted. We believe that every employee should have equity to give them a stake in the company’s future (and that an outsized return for investors should also be an outsized return for employees), but we also believe that the presence of equity can’t be used as an excuse for unsustainably low cash compensation. 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.

There's an entire bullet point dedicated to it. They even used the same words you used, so searching the page should have gotten you to this section.

If you don't agree with the specifics of their argument here, then that would be an interesting addition to the conversation.

[paxys]

> As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment

AKA skipping the discussion

[mmcclure]

Not in the way you're accusing them of.

> I assume they are all giving every employee the same % of equity as the founders? No?

And then in this latest comment, you're again clipping off the part that pretty succinctly addresses your original question.

> ...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, connecting this back to your original question, no, they explicitly answer that by saying they do not give every employee the same percentage of equity as the founders or earlier employees.

[paxys]

Say two employees join the company today – one with 30 years of industry experience and another right out of college – would they get the same equity? What about someone joining as a VP and another one a support tech? According to the founder they should all get the same, because they are taking the same amount of risk. But is that really the case? What about bonus targets? Commissions? And all other forms of compensation?

My guess is the answer to all of them is no, and stock comp, bonus etc. all vary wildly based on title, job description, location, industry experience and all other standard criteria used industry-wide. And if that's the case then despite the standard $190K base salary the actual comp distribution among their employees is going to look exactly like that at other companies despite all the PR.

[bcantrill]

You would be guessing wrong. If it helps to understand Oxide a bit: we have had ~2000 applications and we have 60 employees (a level of oversubscription in part because of this very blog entry, published in 2021). It is exceedingly unlikely (though not impossible) that we would hire someone straight out of school, and one of the surprisingly challenging things at Oxide has been turning away people who could quite potentially be terrific contributors.