[bcantrill]

I am SO baffled. First, this post is two years old -- and has been discussed on HN several times[0][1], but the tenor of the comments here now is just so... vitriolic. I would like to do a blog post on an update on this (the dollar figure is now $191K as the blog post indicates, but the number of employees is now 60) and in particular reflect on some of its many surprising ramifications (all positive), but honestly some of the unhinged comments here have me questioning the judgement of that. Am I the only one seeing a changing tenor here at HN?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348836

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26683510

[jedberg]

I think it's a result of the industry being on a downswing, and a lot of unemployed engineers, who have recently seen rank and file getting laid off while execs get bonuses.

People are very bitter about comp right now, so it's spilling over into this discussion.

[bcantrill]

But you would think that such folks would see the value in the model? I mean, I get that trust is at a very low point but wouldn't folks see the value in a model that focuses on (among other things) fostering mutual trust? There is clearly a lot of anger out there, and I don't know if that's part of a broader trend or not.

[epolanski]

Readers here live in a bubble where the only reason to build a company or join a startup is to get rich, god forbid someone wants to build something, likes a challenge and countless other personal reasons.

No, in this sad place it's either discussing how to move up through corporate ladders or joining startups with insane funding and equity. God forbids, again, anyone has personal professional goals beyond being rich.

Fwiw I like your model and opennes and I find it super fair equating equity with risk. Moreover, I feel like no comments go beyond the money to actually see the goal which is to have people collaborate over compete, remove all the bs that ruins most jobs.

[jedberg]

I think people are just going straight for "what's the catch", "how does this create greater benefits for the founders?". I even replied to someone who said "I was waiting for the other shoe to drop" and the complained about the 100% insurance coverage being unfair.

People are super bitter at execs right now, and the vitriol here is not justified.

FWIW I really like it, although I would love to know more about how equity is determined.

[bcantrill]

Equity has been purely formulaic based on arrival at the company. And speaking personally (though I don't think that I'm an outlier at Oxide in this regard), this is the best team I've ever had the pleasure of working with -- extraordinary in its breadth and depth.

[jedberg]

Interesting. Have you ever had a candidate turn down the offer because the equity was too low? Do you have any issues getting senior people to join with this comp plan?

I'm just thinking for senior people, do you have trouble getting them in the door? Like, would you be willing to work at Oxide at the equity levels you're offering today?

[bcantrill]

We have a process that really requires applicants to develop their own high conviction[0]; it would be unsurprising if candidates for whom compensation is disqualifying never actually applied to Oxide.

In terms of candidates in process who did not matriculate over compensation: prior to writing this blog entry, we had had one candidate drop out over compensation (the lesson we learned was that our compensation had been shared too late in the process with the candidate). Amazingly, after we published this blog post we also had one candidate drop out over compensation (albeit earlier in the process). That one was enlightening because the candidate had read the blog entry but had assumed it was false (?!) and that everyone was actually making secret signing bonuses. Finally, we had one candidate who had simply too much equity as their existing employer to leave. This candidate was absolutely miserable at work, they were disgusted by the company they worked for (and they loved Oxide!), but simply couldn't walk away from the equity, which was vesting quarter over quarter with more money than their parents had made over decades. This was causing real angst for the candidate, even though I assured them that their decision was very understandable!

Finally, your last question is the most important one, because we have always endeavored to build the team that we wanted to be on. For me personally, yes, I would emphatically be willing to work at Oxide -- would that they would have me!

[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xtofg-fMQfZoq8Y3oSAKjEgD...

[steveklabnik]

I took a pay cut to work at Oxide. Coming up on year 3. No regrets.

[lsj0627]

Hey Bryan - it's me, again (the poster).

The transparency is great and is clearly a value-add for candidates, IMO.

But the salary simply does not compete with HCOL Startup Senior+ Engineers (around 20- 40% lower than Staff level).

That said, Oxide is in a unique class of startups that can still hire strong talent despite this pay deficit (whether due to an exceptional product, team, technical challenge, or other rare attribute). I know a Software Engineer who just took a 25% pay cut to join a construction analytics SaaS startup because he has heard his brother (a Surveyor) complain specifically about problems this company's solving!