Hacker News Reader

Comment by poppysan | Hacker News Reader

Time isnt necessarily the most important factor when considering a persons contribution. If i work faster thus produce more than a partner, or if they are stuck grinding out a problem that i may have breezed through they will be rewarded for their inadequacy, as opposed to an actual relevant contribution.

View on HN

I'd agree that not everyone contributes the same value per hour. And as with any arrangement where you have self-reporting meeting monetary reward it will be necessary to have checks against bad actors. But those are problems that you deal with in any sort of business, and it's an agreement among peers, so the social pressure to be honest about both the value and quality of work contributed is going to be quite high.

The dynamic split comes with a performance/experience multiplier that is based on your market rate. The structure already accounts for the fact that one person's hour is not equal to another's. The system is based more on opportunity costs, if you will. Not to mention, there are many other contributions that are accounted for in the "grunt fund" as well, like cash, equipment, relationships, etc.

As jtchang says above, a significant benefit of this method would simply be the opening of communication channels for voicing equity concerns.

Since the equity is dynamic in everyone's mind, it can be changed through discussion. If you think you deserve more in the case you stated, you could bring it up at a meeting and the equity could be redivided.

Hear, hear. I left management consulting precisely because quality and impact are almost ignored in favor of hours billed. What will prevent people from logging lots of "junk miles" to up their stake? Seems like this approach may result in a pissing-contest type workplace where people stay until very late even when there is no work to do.

Exactly. So I move into the office and sleep under my desk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com