One and done: Why stock vesting periods are getting smaller

Coinbase and others are doling out one-year stock grants instead of locking in employees for four years.

One and done: Why stock vesting periods are getting smaller

In May, Coinbase announced an overhaul to its compensation strategy, getting rid of salary negotiations and moving to annual stock grants.

Photo: Steven Ferdman/Getty Images

Golden handcuffs have long been part of the ethos of Silicon Valley, incentivizing tech workers to stay at companies for four years in exchange for lucrative stock awards. But now some companies and startups are experimenting with unlocking the golden handcuffs and switching to a one-year grant model instead.

In recent months, companies like Lyft and Stripe have both moved to issuing one-year grants, according to The Information, which first reported the switch. In May, Coinbase followed suit, announcing an overhaul to its compensation strategy, getting rid of salary negotiations and moving to annual grants.

"In a more traditional model, you're giving a large sum grant to people, but you honestly haven't seen their performance in [the] role yet," said L.J. Brock, Coinbase's head of people. "In our model, what we're trying to do is still attract the same talent, but then alter the deployment of the equity to a point after we've seen their impact and we can differentiate based on observed performance."

Normally, tech workers negotiate big salary packages when they join a company, including stock awards that typically vest over a four-year period. For example, $100,000 awarded in shares (in theory, $25,000 a year) would be worth $300,000 if a startup tripled its value in four years — the delta being the upside for taking the risk and building value for the company. By switching to annual grants, employers dole out smaller awards at a time that vest in a year and can keep tighter control of their equity to pay for performance.

Critics argue that the yearly equity awards could mean employees theoretically lose out on reaping a lot of the upside of joining a tech company if the stock price goes up. (This post has a good explainer of the math behind it.)

Coinbase's Brock argues that it's not about limiting an employee's upside, but instead shifting the compensation model so that it reflects an employee's actual impact. Stock compensation is typically tied to historical job experience; employees negotiate with HR for their compensation package based on the work they did at previous companies. Then companies will dole out stock refreshers to strengthen the golden handcuffs for those who are high-performing. But Coinbase's policy wants to flip that on its head, and instead reward employees for their contributions to the company on a yearly basis rather than base the award on the work they did elsewhere.

Companies have an added incentive to switch, too, because they can more closely control their stock-based compensation costs if they're doling it out yearly instead of allocating a four-year grant. For Coinbase, though, Brock said limiting the use of equity wasn't the goal.

"We're not trying to give people less equity, we're just trying to give equity in a way that correlates directly to impact, but still actually uses a very similar total percentage of equity over a period of time," he said.

The annual grants also unlock the golden handcuffs so that people don't feel pressured to stay in a job. Coinbase's move is meant to "purposely challenge the norm that someone might stay in a job for a period longer than they would be engaged, or at their highest productivity," Brock said.

The shake-up in the model hasn't won over everyone as a result. On the anonymous workplace forum Blind, several tech workers have called for a boycott against Stripe, Lyft and Coinbase over the policies, believing they could lower salaries. Lyft and Coinbase are now both publicly-traded companies, while Stripe is so late-stage it almost operates at a quasi-public level. Still, they often compete for a similar talent pool, with tech workers deciding between working at big tech companies versus startups.

"Early-stage startups should not follow their lead," said Sheel Mohnot, founder of Better Tomorrow Ventures. "The advantage of a four-year grant is it keeps people. It gives them equity but also keeps them motivated to work and stay at their company, which is what you want, and as your company becomes more valuable, they have stronger golden handcuffs."

Union Square Ventures partner Fred Wilson agreed it won't work for early-stage companies, in part because of the mechanics of the types of shares most early-stage companies issue. But a Coinbase board member wrote on his blog, AVC, that he thinks the talent market should be allowed to operate freely instead of the golden handcuffs trapping employees who are too afraid to leave money on the table.

"I've never loved that concept," he wrote. "It feels like staying in a bad marriage for the kids."

For Coinbase, the purpose was twofold. Not only did it want to align pay to performance, it also wanted to equalize the prices, given that the volatility of crypto could also wildly fluctuate Coinbase's stock price. As part of the transition, all of the grants will be based on the same day's price so someone isn't getting an award the day of a Bitcoin crash while another employee gets their award a day after blockbuster earnings.

"In a world where you're giving a large lump sum grant that could be a four-year grant, that small change in macro environmental things that we don't really control can really have an outsized impact over a long period of time," Brock said. "In the way we're doing it, we get to normalize everyone to an annual period and hopefully manage that out a little bit more."

The shift also brings up the question of whether golden handcuffs really exist in Silicon Valley at all. Given the competitive market for talent, lots of startup employees are already exiting after a year or two in order to join the next rocket ship and take whatever stock had vested until that point. Coinbase is also going a step further and having vesting start immediately instead of the typical one-year cliff.

"I'm a little bit dubious that there's actually been as much handcuffs on people over a period of time as we thought there were," Brock said. "When you talk to a lot of talent, they were running their own personal ETF strategy, moving from unicorn to unicorn anyway."

General Catalyst talent partner Katie Hughes doesn't think the one-year grants will tremendously shift the hiring landscape in Silicon Valley. Instead, she sees it as more of a validation point that a lot of the late-stage startups are operating more like public companies in switching to a pay-for-performance model.

She thinks it could be "healthy" for companies to take the one-year approach as long as expectations and communications are done well. "I think in many ways it's more healthy, but you have to make sure there's trust [in the] leadership in the organization that this could be done fairly, because if folks feel like it's favoritism or bias or a lack of clear expectations, that's where that can become toxic for your culture," she said.

In Coinbase's world, those employees are free to roam if it's not a fit. It wants to keep the people who want to be there and reward the ones who are doing the best job.

"I hope that they're here for longer than four years, but more importantly that they're here for the right amount of time where the relationship is really working out well, whether that's two years or eight years," Brock said.

A visitor plays a game using Microsoft's Xbox controller at a flagship store of SK Telecom in Seoul on November 10, 2020. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP) (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE/AFP via Getty Images)

On this episode of the Source Code podcast: Nick Statt joins the show to discuss Microsoft’s $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, and what it means for the tech and game industries. Then, Issie Lapowsky talks about a big week in antitrust reform, and whether real progress is being made in the U.S. Finally, Hirsh Chitkara explains why AT&T, Verizon, the FAA and airlines have been fighting for months about 5G coverage.

For more on the topics in this episode:

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

COVID-19 accelerated what many CEOs and CTOs have struggled to do for the past decade: It forced organizations to be agile and adjust quickly to change. For all the talk about digital transformation over the past decade, when push came to shove, many organizations realized they had made far less progress than they thought.

Now with the genie of rapid change out of the bottle, we will never go back to accepting slow and steady progress from our organizations. To survive and thrive in times of disruption, you need to build a resilient, adaptable business with systems and processes that will keep you nimble for years to come. An essential part of business agility is responding to change by quickly developing new applications and adapting old ones. IT faces an unprecedented demand for new applications. According to IDC, by 2023, more than 500 million digital applications and services will be developed and deployed — the same number of apps that were developed in the last 40 years.[1]

Keep Reading Show less
Denise Broady, CMO, Appian
Denise oversees the Marketing and Communications organization where she is responsible for accelerating the marketing strategy and brand recognition across the globe. Denise has over 24+ years of experience as a change agent scaling businesses from startups, turnarounds and complex software companies. Prior to Appian, Denise worked at SAP, WorkForce Software, TopTier and Clarkston Group. She is also a two-time published author of “GRC for Dummies” and “Driven to Perform.” Denise holds a double degree in marketing and production and operations from Virginia Tech.

Congress’ antitrust push has a hate speech problem

Sen. Klobuchar’s antitrust bill is supposed to promote competition. So why are advocates afraid it could also promote extremists?

The bill as written could make it a lot riskier for large tech companies to deplatform or demote companies that violate their rules.

Photo: Photo by Elizabeth Frantz-Pool/Getty Images

The antitrust bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday and is now headed to the Senate floor is, at its core, an attempt to prevent the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google from boosting their own products and services on the marketplaces and platforms they own.

But upon closer inspection, some experts say, the bill as written could make it a lot riskier for large tech companies to deplatform or demote companies that violate their rules.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.


Ask a tech worker: How many of your colleagues have caught omicron?

Millions of workers called in sick in recent weeks. How is tech handling it?

A record number of Americans called in sick with COVID-19 in recent weeks. Even with high vaccination rates, tech companies aren’t immune.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Welcome back to Ask a Tech Worker! For this recurring feature, I’ve been roaming downtown San Francisco at lunchtime to ask tech employees about how the workplace is changing. This week, I caught up with tech workers about what their companies are doing to avoid omicron outbreaks, and whether many of their colleagues had been out sick lately. Got an idea for a future topic? Email me.

Omicron stops for no one, it seems. Between Dec. 29 and Jan. 10, 8.8 million Americans missed work to either recover from COVID-19 or care for someone who was recovering, according to the Census Bureau. That number crushed the previous record of 6.6 million from last January, and tripled the numbers from early last month.

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

The fast-growing paychecks of Big Tech’s biggest names

Tech giants had a huge pandemic, and their execs are getting paid.

TIm Cook received $82 million in stock awards on top of his $3 million salary as Apple's CEO.

Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Tech leaders are making more than ever.

As tech giants thrive amid the pandemic, companies like Meta, Alphabet and Microsoft have continued to pay their leaders accordingly: Big Tech CEO pay is higher than ever. In the coming months, we’ll begin seeing a lot of companies release their executive compensation from the past year as fiscal 2022 begins.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht
Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.
Latest Stories