Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TZubiri 413 days ago
Yeah, but equity is very standard in SF startups, Oxide actually goes in the opposite direction, by reducing weight from equity and placing it on salary.
1 comments

What makes you say that? We talk about salary compensation, yes, but there's also equity compensation.
Oh I didn't notice I was talking to a primary source.

Below I have tried to make clear what the original statement was (root comment), the implicit presumption in it that I adressed (that flat salaries make a company more co-op) instead of addressing the actual now invalidated question (why not 'make it this other thing), why I think it's wrong and what I think is the case (the opposite).

None of this is necessarily worthy of such deep elucidation, mind you, but I quite enjoy the nerdy depth-first nitpickiness that only internet threads can afford. So here goes nothing:

The root comment asks "why not make it an employee owned co-op at this point." implying that Oxide's salary policy difference, (diff between the Oxide fork and the SF Startup base) brings it too close to employee-owned status.

What I say is, au contraire mon amie, the delta that Oxide's bylaws/RFP apply on top of the base Corp Structure refer to the fixed compensation, where equity/ownership remains largely unchanged (unchanged from the base, not inexistent or unchanged compared to the base of the base, the commodity non-sf Corp.). So to the extent that it is employee-owned, it is a property of the immediate base and not of the fork.

One could even argue that since total compensation a limited resource, an increase in fixed compensation means a decrease in equity compensation and viceversa (more salary less profits, less salary more profits), therefore the flat salary difference of Oxide pulls them AWAY from employee-ownership (albeit only slightly admittedly), by making fixed compensation a stronger component of compensation than equity, (at least compensation-wise, as there are non comp. properties of ownership)

If I may mathematically summarize in oversimplified 1D political terms. Consider the Political Alignment 'PA' of company structures as reals [-1;+1], where right = (0;1], left = [-1;0) and center = [-ε;+ε]. Then:

PA(Co-op) < PA(SF Corp) < PA(Oxide) < PA(WY/DW Corp)

And not:

PA(Co-op) ≈ PA(Oxide) < PA(SF Corp)

As root comment would suggest.

I guess what I'm saying big picture is that Oxide is a political-center Company and OS. It was born treading the needle between Linux and Oracle, which are already quite centered Orgs/OS when compared to the extremes like GNU and Apple.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk and yes, before someone asks, I have kissed a girl before.