They're trading the 'unfair' uneven distribution of equity based on position for one in which people are compensated equally regardless of position. This twist

They're trading the 'unfair' uneven distribution of equity based on position for one in which people are compensated equally regardless of position. This twist on the distribution seems like a great way to attract people to fill those positions that generally come with a less-than-average equity expectation. However, I'd be willing to guess that there is a negative correlation between ease of filling a position with a high-quality hire and the average expected equity amount for that position. It seems to be a disincentive for those with higher-than-average equity expectation in that it implies that their contribution to the company is valued at the same amount proportionally as the lowest-contributing employee of the company, salary notwithstanding. If you are looking to hire a new CEO and inform him/her that, in the case of an IPO or acquisition, the new secretary hired last week will get the same cut of the bonus pool as the prospective CEO, they might be less inclined to work for you vs a company that, all else being equal, might offer them a proportionally higher payout. Edit: Response to reply by jarin: 1) Right, I meant to encompass salary with 'all else being equal' in the last sentence. 2) The fact that something is currently unlikely doesn't mean that it won't ever become more likely. I think ChuckMcM's reply addresses this pretty well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2888740 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2888740