"Theoretically, a startup that actually wants to compete on compensation by sharing in good fortune could craft an equity package which is simple and standardized enough to be comprehensible by ordinary humans."
One time, I received an offer from a small, struggling startup. But because it's equity structure was so simple (struggling has a way of simplifying things), I counter-proposed taking less salary for more equity, and they agreed.
With the typical equity opacity removed, I viewed the trade-off as more of a bet on myself: the impact that I could make and if I assessed the company correctly.
The payoff when we were acquired was just the equivalent of a nice extra bonus. The real satisfaction was having more skin in the game, having the expected impact, being correct on the assessment, etc.
But it wouldn't have happened if I felt lost in the complex equity structure and confidentiality barriers that seem to be present in many startups.