Yes, Meta Really Did Offer $100M to an OpenAI Researcher

You might’ve seen the headlines floating around:
“Meta Offered $100M to Lure an OpenAI Researcher.”
Sounds like clickbait, right?

It’s not. It’s true.
I’ve confirmed the numbers. I’ve seen the offer structure. And yes—Meta is offering up to $100 million to some of the top AI researchers in the world. It’s part cash, part equity, and all about locking in talent that might be able to crack the code on AGI.

It’s wild. But it also makes a lot of sense.

So let’s break it down: Why is Meta making these kinds of offers? Who are they targeting? And what does it tell us about the future of compensation—especially in the age of AI?

It’s Not for “Any” Talent. It’s for The Talent

Let’s start here: This isn’t about your average SWE.
Meta isn’t tossing around $100M offers like party favors. These offers are for a tiny number of people—probably fewer than 50 in the world. Maybe even fewer than 25 in the U.S.

These are the researchers who are closest to the frontier of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—the idea that machines could eventually match or surpass human-level intelligence.

If you believe AGI is real and attainable (and clearly, Meta does), then hiring someone who can move the needle isn’t just a strategic hire, it’s a generational investment.

So, Why $100M?

Because if you’re Meta, the math checks out.
Some sources believe AGI could unlock trillions in value. If you’re the company to build or own the leading AGI model, you don’t just win AI—you win the platform, the applications, the ecosystem. You win everything.

So what’s $100M in that context?
A tiny, calculated bet on a possible monopoly.

According to The Information, the offers include a significant equity component that vests over time—some structured to backload the biggest payouts to ensure retention and alignment.

This isn’t a signing bonus. It’s a mission bonus.

The Competition for AGI Talent Is a Whole New Market

Meta isn’t the only one bidding big.
We’ve entered a phase where talent arbitrage is the new battleground. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind—they’re all fighting for the same tiny pool of elite AI minds.

And like any tight market, the price is going up. Fast.

Compensation packages are being built like startup cap tables.
Backloaded equity, aggressive refreshers, retention hooks, and mission-driven vision statements that look more like manifestos than job descriptions.

What It Tells Us About the Future of Compensation

This moment isn’t just about Meta or OpenAI. It’s about where compensation is headed.

In the future:

• Your most valuable employees might not be “managers”—they’ll be mission-critical specialists
• Equity isn’t just a startup perk—it’s becoming the dominant lever for retention and alignment
• Comp structures will have to flex for edge-case roles, not just standardized ladders
• And most importantly, value will drive pay, not precedent

We’re already seeing the shift in total rewards design. Compensation is no longer just “market data + years of experience.” It’s context. It’s potential value. It’s scarcity.

What I Love (and Don’t) About All of This

Honestly? I love it.
It shows that we’re starting to treat compensation for what it really is: a strategic, high-stakes investment in talent.

I like that it’s bold. I like that it’s long-term aligned.
But I don’t love how inaccessible it is. Most orgs can’t just whip up a $100M comp package. I also don’t like how vague it is—the definition of AGI isn’t super clear right now, so these are big gambles on a shaky foundation. 

So the takeaway here isn’t “go offer your staff $100M.” It’s:

✓ Be clear on who your most valuable people are
✓ Design comp around alignment, not just retention
✓ Don’t assume your existing structures work for your future workforce

And one more thing: these mega-offers? They’ll start to trickle down. Not in size—but in structure. Expect to see more companies experimenting with tiered equity, milestone-based rewards, and nonlinear compensation design—especially for hard-to-hire roles.

Competing for the Future Is Expensive—But So Is Losing

If you think AGI is possible, then Meta’s move makes sense.
If you think talent is the multiplier, then it really makes sense.

The big lesson here?
Pay is context.
Value isn’t always tied to hours or titles—it’s tied to outcomes, opportunity, and scarcity.

And if your comp strategy doesn’t reflect that, you’ll lose the people who matter most—maybe to Meta.