trying to properly analyze the cost/benefit ratio of 100% financial transparency.
some potential risks:
* employees leaking financial details to press, future investors, competitors.
* employees getting upset over smaller equity stakes.
Seriously, burn is not that hard to ballpark, engineers who are smart enough to code should be able to do this math and make a calculated risk.
Parent's merely suggesting a Q&D sanity check that would help a lot of people who choose blissful ignorance. If you feel like I'm oversimplifying, would you mind elaborating further or sharing examples?
The second someone says that, that's a sign they have no actual argument.
If employees are concerned about it, they should just ask. Good, ethical companies will be more straight with you than shady ones.
Getting accurate financials is tough even when a company isn't cooking the books, let alone when a company is misleading investors. Here's an extreme: "Over-transparency" didn't help Enron's employees.[1] All of the information was there, but people refused to believe it. For startups, it's hard to remain disciplined and realistic about hype from an internal perspective.
Meanwhile, I'm sympathetic to keeping information privileged within private companies.
[1]http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2001/10/enro...
Want to buy a house or pay down debt? Not up to you. They keep it secret because candidates would absolutely push back if they knew their options were worthless unless/until the company IPOs.
[1]: https://medium.com/@octopoedi/dear-gusto-mission-is-more-tha...