This is misleading. His compensation may have been effectively $10M last year, but it's almost certainly based on a stock grant several years in the past. Twitter did not offer him $10M/year, they offered him some probability of $250k/year and a small chance of $10M/year. Now the bet has paid off and he's collecting, but it's incorrect to compare a winning lottery ticket to how many lottery tickets are being offered to current hires.
"This is misleading. His compensation may have been effectively $10M last year, but it's almost certainly based on a stock grant several years in the past."
You're right, or at least close enough to make my comment based on faulty assumptions.
It looks like they hired him without the "senior" title last year. I was basing my assumption on the article's statement that he made $10M "last year".
Comments
This is misleading. His compensation may have been effectively $10M last year, but it's almost certainly based on a stock grant several years in the past. Twitter did not offer him $10M/year, they offered him some probability of $250k/year and a small chance of $10M/year. Now the bet has paid off and he's collecting, but it's incorrect to compare a winning lottery ticket to how many lottery tickets are being offered to current hires.
"This is misleading. His compensation may have been effectively $10M last year, but it's almost certainly based on a stock grant several years in the past."
They hired him this year.
You're right, or at least close enough to make my comment based on faulty assumptions.
It looks like they hired him without the "senior" title last year. I was basing my assumption on the article's statement that he made $10M "last year".
His base salary was only – 'only' being relative to the misleading title – $145k.
From the article: "He drew a salary of $145,513 and a bonus of $100,000."