>> Very few people willingly take a pay-cut. So I already addressed your point. I didn't say "no people" or "zero people" I said "very few". You're an outlie

>> Very few people willingly take a pay-cut. So I already addressed your point. I didn't say "no people" or "zero people" I said "very few". You're an outlier. That's great! But it's not reasonable to expect to organize the majority of people around things that motivate a minority of people. To you the idea that more money is just ego is true; I have no problems accepting that you could believe such a thing. To other people more money isn't necessarily ego. It can be of course, but it isn't necessarily. I mean, who really needs $200mm? Seemingly Elon Musk did and he's using it to make the world a better place re: Tesla and SpaceX. Who needs $500k in the bank? Anyone who wants to do a startup and fund themselves rather than run the angel/VC treadmill. Who needs to make $300k a year rather than $200k a year? Someone who wants to live in a nice place in Manhattan rather than commuting an hour from Brooklyn. Who needs to make $75k a year instead of $50k? Someone with kids! Someone who doesn't have their house paid off yet. Someone who doesn't own a house yet. Basically everyone. It's really great that you're in a position to be able to take a pay cut to work at a startup. But I don't think you took that pay cut altruistically; I imagine that you did in order to get something else that you want like more responsibility, more interesting work, to see your work used by millions of people, etc. I could be wrong of course but it seems unlikely to me. Not all people want more money to spend on themselves. A great plenty do, but there are also outliers who use more money to make the world better. I suppose you could argue that even for those folks it's just ego. If that's the case then I am all for more ego if it drags the future -- kicking and screaming -- into the present.