[epolanski]

I think the letter addresses this perfectly: equity depends on risk you take, the earlier you joined the more you get seems very reasonable.

[ivraatiems]

Except that undermines some of the core points of the letter. They talk about transparency, but are still being quite opaque. They talk about teamwork, but as employee 50, how am I supposed to feel like I'm on the same team as employee 10, when he stands to make several times more than I do if we succeed?

[wmf]

Isn't this the case in every startup?

[sidlls]

Yes, but it's rare that employee 10 contributes to the success of a company that has a huge liquidity event at the same multiple as his or her equity multiple as compared with employee 50.

[jedberg]

No. Key late hires will often get more equity than long time junior employees.

[epolanski]

As employee 10 why would I have to take more risks, put hard work if I m going to make as employee 1000 who did little?

Anyway, the beauty of such transparency is that you can decide whether it is fair for you or not.

[malborodog]

Presumably then you'd have the opportunity to swap some of that comp for equity (buy shares). That would be my way of balancing it, anyway.

[8note]

Does it?

This is inherently unequal as explored by Dan Olsen in The Line Goes Up

If you weren't born yet, you lack access to that equity