[hzia]

> "Do work, but get paid only if we use it" feels potentially exploitative. You do mention a "base pay" rate but I wonder how it compares to the "merged PR" rate?

90% of compensation for devs is base and does not depend on the “merge PR” rate (which is in-fact 95%)

> * Code quality and adherence to internal code standards is challenging for external contributions

> The whole setup seems to fit in an uncomfortable middle ground

Majority of our customers are in-fact private and not OSS. We can unfortunately only share the latter. But it is targeted towards engineering teams that have already started to invest into DevEx and building tooling to make contribution easier We do help to set that up if customers sign up on the Team or Enterprise plan as a first sprint to add all these guardrails in place.

I agree that junior devs today are heavily exploited by existing freelance and outsourcing platforms where it's a race to the cheapest contractor in the market. For teams who want to freelance, we are not a good fit (and most likely more expensive). Where we do shine is an in-house team that does not have the bandwidth to hand-hold each external contractor one by one to become productive. And with that focus, our devs get to enjoy a fixed base stipend, career ladder internally to grow and successfully joining our customers and / or larger corps like Meta, Google and so on

[outsidetheparty]

OK! Those are good and reasonable answers, I appreciate the response!