Connect with us

Business

More CEOs want Elon Musk–style ‘moonshot’ pay packages—but comp experts are raising alarms

Published

on



The all-or-nothing moonshot pay plan was a gambit so risky even Axon Enterprise CEO Rick Smith’s wife was against it. 

But Smith had started getting antsy around 2016, as he was approaching three decades at the company, Axon compensation committee chair Hadi Partovi told Fortune. Smith was talking more seriously to the board about his succession plan, who was next to lead the company, and what he would do next. Partovi knew Smith could make a lot more money if he launched a startup than if he made Axon worth 10 times as much under his previous comp plan. 

“This is when I realized we had a real problem,” said Partovi. 

Smith thrives in high-risk, high-reward environments, so the Axon board granted Smith a near carbon copy of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s moonshot pay plan but on a much smaller scale. The challenge to Smith was to grow the Taser stun gun and body-camera maker 10-fold over a 10-year performance period starting in 2018. From a base of $2.5 billion, Smith had to increase the company’s market cap by $1 billion to unlock each new tranche of stock options, for a total of 12 tranches and a market cap of $13.5 billion. In addition, Smith had to hit eight revenue-based operational or eight adjusted-Ebitda-based goals. During the decade he was supposed to work on achieving those goals, he would get almost nothing—no bonuses or other incentives, and his salary was about $31,000 a year.

“In full candor, my wife was against me taking on the challenge, as she saw it as just too risky,” Smith wrote in a letter to investors in 2023. But Smith blew through all the goals and each of the 12 tranches in five years—half the time the board gave him—making Smith the highest-paid CEO last year with compensation valued at $165 million. The stock price grew more than 600% between 2018 when the board offered him the moonshot and 2023. After he unlocked the 12th tranche, Smith negotiated an $88 million reduction on his next performance plan (which will keep him at Axon until at least 2030 with a goal of driving the stock to $943.75) and directed it be granted to the lowest-paid workers at Axon, showering them with surprise stock grants based on their years of tenure at the company.

“The best is yet to come,” Smith wrote to investors in his letter this year. 

What is a moonshot pay package?

Smith shooting the moon—twice, potentially—represents a resurgent breed of executive compensation that has captured the imaginations of a growing number of CEOs. Moonshot wanderlust initially kicked into high gear after Elon Musk’s groundbreaking 2017 award from Tesla, once valued as high as $56 billion before it was twice rescinded owing to a legal challenge. Moonshot grants, not to be confused with an outsize stock grant known as a “mega grant” for its sheer size, tie CEO compensation almost entirely to aggressive, seemingly impossible performance targets, explained Eric Hoffmann, vice president and chief data officer at comp consulting firm Farient Advisors. CEOs don’t get the awards unless they hit specific valuation hurdles and operational goals, he said, and the performance periods are typically five, seven or 10 years, rather than the more standard three-year period.

“It should be difficult to get these awards,” said Hoffmann. “You have to create a lot of value in order to earn these kinds of awards.”

Traditional CEO pay packages include a base salary, an annual cash bonus, and a longer-term equity incentive award often based on time and performance goals. According to compensation data firm Equilar, median compensation among S&P 500 CEOs was $17.1 million in 2024, up nearly 10% over the year prior. Moonshot awards, however, upend the traditional compensation model while also bucking the trend of billionaire tech founders like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Larry Page, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, who all held large equity stakes and focused on making them more valuable, noted Hoffmann. The key distinction is that those founders built wealth by focusing on increasing the value of their existing equity stakes, while taking minimal or no compensation, rather than seeking massive equity grants on top of their founder stakes, said Hoffmann. The moonshot model is a departure—seeking both founder equity upside plus additional compensation awards.

“This way of wealth building is different than what was used during the dotcom era,” he noted.

The upside to the moonshot is an enormous payout and a growing slice of company ownership if an executive can deliver transformational growth, but investors aren’t always wild about them, and moonshots don’t come without significant risk, said Todd Sirras, a managing director with consulting firm Semler Brossy who has advised clients on these deals. Companies are “willing to bet all of these ungodly amounts of money on one person thinking, ‘That’s the right machine we need for the factory,’” said Sirras. But there’s a fundamental flaw in this approach because people are unpredictable—unlike factory equipment.

“Human beings are terrible machines,” Sirras told Fortune. “They’re emotional. Their attention gets divided thinking about what airplane they’re going to buy. It’s more risky to invest in a human being than it is to invest in a machine because human beings break in different and unpredictable ways.”

Until now, the moonshot offers have been almost exclusive to founder-CEOs and almost always established pre-IPO, said Sirras. Semler Brossy’s database of about 80 moonshot awards includes dozens issued during the SPAC IPO boom of 2020 and 2021 that are now “dead in the water” because companies failed to meet their valuation targets, he added. 

With fewer IPOs in recent years and fewer moonshots, there are about 16 that exist among large publicly traded companies—and even fewer CEOs who have achieved maximum payouts, including Smith and Musk, according to research from Claire Kamas, a senior data analyst at Farient Advisors. Other companies that have awarded the grants include Airbnb, DoorDashOracle, ServiceNow, and RH, formerly known as Restoration Hardware, Kamas found. But the high-profile nature of the awards and the eye-popping figures associated with them are pushing board-level compensation committees that negotiate CEO pay to prepare for conversations about similar packages. 

Farient has gotten queries from compensation committee chairs who are already preparing for how they will address the situation when the CEO comes to them about a moonshot plan. In one case, the CEO isn’t a founder but a manager hired to run the company, Hoffmann noted. He isn’t a fan of moonshot awards, particularly in cases where CEOs already hold significant ownership stakes and control over their companies. 

“From a firm perspective, it is our view that these plans are generally not in the best interests of the organizations, the stakeholders, and shareholders in these companies,” said Hoffmann. “To me, a lot of these feel like a lottery ticket, a winner-take-all.”

Despite the risk, Sirras sees these awards rising in popularity again, and he sees new trends emerging: Founders are granting moonshots to their “anointed successors,” he said. Real estate platform Opendoor Technologies this month granted a moonshot potentially worth $2.8 billion and an 11% slice of the company to new CEO Kaz Nejatian. Sirras said that award looks to be the first of its kind, and the board likely offered it to Nejatian because of a blessing from Opendoor’s cofounders, Eric Wu and Khosla Ventures’ Keith Rabois. Wu and Rabois returned to the board alongside Nejatian’s hiring and invested $40 million of equity capital into the company. 

Sirras said the same trend seems to be occurring in private equity. For instance, when founders Henry Kravis and George Roberts of KKR stepped down, the firm in 2021 granted co-CEOs Joe Bae and Scott Nuttall 1.2 million shares of KKR Holdings, valued at about $75 million, as part of their promotions. That same year, Apollo Global Management granted copresidents Jim Zelter and Scott Kleinman the potential to earn more than $860 million in stock. Zelter was promoted to president in 2025, and Marc Rowan remains CEO.

In addition to controlling founders who are planning leadership transitions and “founder-anointed successors,” the new wave of awards will likely also go to leading-edge executives in scenarios in which founders are making investment decisions, said Sirras. The arms race for talent between OpenAI and Meta and the reported compensation packages Zuckerberg has offered come to mind, he added. 

“From a design perspective, the magnitude is mind-boggling,” said Sirras. He compared it to the Jurassic Park film series. “Danger increases exponentially the closer these awards get to the general executive population,” Sirras wrote in an email. Alongside moonshots for founder-anointed successors and non-successors with a major capital investment he deems “inside the T. rex fence,” the rise of “awards in non-founder companies means the dinosaurs have escaped and are heading to the mainland,” Sirras wrote. 

The awards can also prompt investors to revolt. Business payments company Corpay awarded CEO Ronald Clarke 850,000 performance-based stock options valued at $55.6 million in 2021. The award had stock price hurdles of $350 and $400 and Clarke got no long-term equity grants in 2020, 2022, and 2023. In 2024, the comp committee canceled 300,000 stock options subject to the $400 hurdle and modified the criterion for 550,000 stock options subject to the $350 hurdle to require that Corpay hit a closing stock price at or above $350 for at least three trading days by the end of 2024. Clarke achieved the modified hurdle on Oct. 23, 2024. Corpay told investors the change was meant to “align Mr. Clarke’s realized pay with that of shareholders who benefited from the increased stock level over $350 before the modification, but prior to the modification the stock had not closed above $350 for 10 consecutive days, which was the pre-modification hurdle.” In other words, the board made it simpler for Clarke to earn the stock options by reducing the target from 10 consecutive trading days above $350 to just three trading days, a hurdle he cleared shortly after the change. 

The stock didn’t hit $400 until February 2025 and is currently trading at just under $300. The company’s 2025 Say-on-Pay vote—a thumbs-up, thumbs-down nonbinding vote on executive pay—only got support from 53.5% of votes cast. Over the past 14 years, the Russell 3000 index saw average support of about 91% for pay programs. 

Corpay did not respond to a request for comment.

Axon Enterprise moonshot

At Axon, Smith’s moonshot deal differs from Musk’s in another key way: It’s open to Smith’s direct reports on down to line workers at Axon, making employees eligible for a version of Smith’s moonshot deal. Workers could give up some salary, put some of their pay at risk, and work to hit revenue targets. Plus, every employee in the U.S. got a grant of 60 performance stock units that vested according to the same milestones in Smith’s award—a move almost unheard of in corporate America. No one other than Smith was able to essentially give up all their pay, said Partovi, mostly because Smith was independently successful enough that if he didn’t cut it and got nothing, he had enough of a cushion. Roughly $75 million in employee compensation was locked up as at-risk pay so employees could take part in the moonshot. 

“I really think that was a driver behind why the company grew so fast,” said Partovi. “Any element of infighting was gone—everybody was suddenly like, ‘We’re all in this together.’”

Smith’s 2023 award went through a significant negotiation process where Partovi heard directly from shareholders about everything they didn’t like about the first plan so he could debug it. The board also attempted to legal-proof it against the type of challenge that Musk’s moonshot faced, prompting one of the compensation committee members who had socialized with Smith to resign from the committee. The board also changed the vehicle type from performance options to restricted stock, added in speed brakes that would keep Smith at Axon, and made it more difficult for Smith to hit the last few tranches. Partovi said he addressed every question from shareholders about misalignment in the plan during the board’s negotiation process with Smith. 

Ultimately, Partovi credits the moonshot deal with transforming the corporate culture around shared risk and high reward with a version of a high-stakes compensation plan rolled out to everyone at the company. In his view, it helped to eliminate dynamics where direct reports and general employees resent outsize pay for the chief executive, he said. 

“The big thing is, the CEO is taking a risk in giving up his pay, and you don’t want it to turn out to be shareholders win and the CEO wins or shareholders lose and the CEO still wins,” said Partovi. “I don’t know if grants like Rick’s make sense for everybody, but they strongly make sense for Rick Smith at Axon.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



China has fulfilled its initial commitment to buy 12 million metric tons of soybeans from the U.S., but it’s not clear if the trade agreement announced in October can withstand President Donald Trump’s ever-shifting trade policy as American farmers are still dealing with high production costs.

Earlier this month, Trump said he would impose 25% tariffs on any country that buys from Iran, which would include China. Then last weekend he threatened to impose 10% tariffs on eight of America’s closest allies in Europe if they continue to oppose his efforts to acquire Greenland.

So the administration’s trade policy continues to change quickly, and Iowa State University agricultural economist Chad Hart said that could undermine the trade agreement with China and jeopardize the commitment by the world’s largest soybean buyer to purchase 25 million metric tons of American soybeans in each of the next three years.

“Those new tariffs — what does that mean for this agreement? Does it throw it out? Is it still binding? That’s sort of the game here now,” Hart said.

Beijing paused any purchase of U.S. soybeans last summer during its trade war with Washington but agreed to resume buying from American soybean farmers after Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met in South Korea and agreed to a truce.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the purchasing milestone China has met in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business on Tuesday from the sidelines of a major economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Bessent met with his Chinese counterpart, Vice President He Lifeng. Bessent said China remains committed.

“He told me that just this week they completed their soybean purchases, and we’re looking forward to next year’s 25 million tons,” Bessent said. “They did everything they said they were going to do.”

Last fall, preliminary data from the Department of Agriculture cast doubts on whether China would live up to the agreement because it was slow to begin purchasing American soybeans and there is a lag before the purchases show up in the official numbers.

On Tuesday, the USDA data showed that China had bought more than 8 million tons of U.S. soybeans by Jan. 8, and its daily reports indicated that China placed several more orders since then, ranging from 132,000 tons to more than 300,000 tons.

China has shifted much of its soybean purchases over to Brazil and Argentina in recent years to diversify its sources and find the cheapest deals. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data shows.

Trump is planning to send roughly $12 billion in aid to U.S. farmers to help them withstand the trade war, but farmers say the aid won’t solve all their problems as they continue to deal with the soaring costs of fertilizer, seeds and labor that make it hard to turn a profit right now. Soybean farmers will get $30.88 per acre while corn farmers will receive $44.36 per acre. Another crop hit hard when China stopped buying was sorghum, and those farmers will get $48.11 per acre. The amounts are based on a USDA formula on the cost of production.

That and uncertainty about trade markets and how much farmers will receive for their crops has even some of the most optimistic farmers worried, said Cory Walters, who is an associate professor in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Department of Agricultural Economics. Soybean prices jumped up above $11.50 per bushel after the agreement was announced, but the price has since fallen to about $10.56 per bushel on Tuesday. So prices are close to where they were a year ago and aren’t high enough to cover most farmers’ costs.

“Everything is changing — the land rental market, the fertilizer market, the seed market and it’s all pinching the farmer when they go to do their cash flows. The ability to make a decision is tougher now because of all the uncertainty in the market,” Walters said.

___

This story has been updated to correct that Bessent spoke on Fox Business, not Fox News.

___

Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska. Associated Press writers Didi Tang and Fatima Hussein contributed from Washington.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Wall Street is talking about whether Trump’s Greenland plan will end U.S. ‘primacy’

Published

on



Investors reacted emphatically to President Trump’s insistence that he won’t back down on his plan to take over Greenland: They hate it. The S&P 500 fell 2% yesterday, even though 81% of its companies have beaten their Q4 earnings expectations so far. The dollar fell off a cliff, losing nearly 1% of its value against a basket of foreign currencies. U.S. bond prices weakened modestly. Gold, the safe-haven investment, hit yet another new record high.

The “sell America” trade is in full effect, in other words. S&P futures were up marginally this morning, suggesting that the bloodletting has been put on hold until traders hear what Trump has to say at the World Economic Forum in Davos later today. Trump offered a small ray of hope before he left for Switzerland when he told NewsNation, “We’ll probably be able to work something out.”

The drama has started a global debate about ending America’s “primacy” as the place for investors to hold assets. Increasingly, analysts and economists are talking about hedging against U.S. risk and deploying their capital in markets which are more predictable. The fact that the S&P 500 underperformed last year compared to markets in Asia and Europe is helping make the case. It’s a rerun in 2026, too. The S&P is down 0.71% year-to-date, while the Europe STOXX 600 is up 0.69% and the South Korean KOSPI is up an astonishing 14%.

“Until the US no longer ‘threatens’ with the use of tariffs … the so-called ‘primacy’ of the U.S. remains at risk of further dissolution, and with it an upending of the geopolitical alignments that have upheld markets in recent years,” Macquarie analysts Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry wrote in a recent note to clients.

Their argument—perhaps one of the most extreme ones that Fortune has ever seen in an investment bank research note—is that when the U.S. goes through a major political convulsion a period of stagnation follows, and thus investors should begin moving their money away from America:

“A line can be traced, for example, from the failure of the U.S. in the Vietnam War and the follow-on decline in U.S, primacy, to the U.S.’s gold reserve depletion, and the subsequent end of the fixed exchange rate system under the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. The ‘fiat money’ era that followed was associated with a large decline in the real value of the USD, from 1971 until 1981, as well as a period of inflation and recessions across the 1970s,” they said. 

“We should worry about the USD and its relation to other currencies, too. If the reserve status of the USD does depend on the U.S. role in the world—as guarantor of security and a rules-based order—then the events of the past year, and of the past three weeks, in particular, carry the seeds of a reallocation away from the USD, and the search for alternatives, especially among reserve managers. So far, allocators have only found solace in gold, but they may eventually move toward other fiat currencies, too.”

Wall Street got a glimpse of what this might look like when the Danish retirement savings fund AkademikerPension said yesterday that it would sell its $100 million stake in U.S. bonds by the end of the week.

So far, traders are flinching at Trump’s actions. But we haven’t yet seen the kind of full-scale capital flight away from U.S. assets that might, for instance, raise inflation, interest rates or trigger a recession. But the mere fact that Wall Street is discussing it is significant.

Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos told clients in a note at the weekend: “Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the U.S. has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined. In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing.”

This note was internally controversial. Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing had to call U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to disavow it.

The CEO does not stand by it but Saravelos’s colleagues may be more sympathetic. Jim Reid and his team, who religiously send an early morning email summarizing market action, did not send their email this morning. The bank told Fortune, “Deutsche Bank Research is independent in their work, therefore views expressed in individual research notes do not necessarily represent the view of the bank’s management.”

In fact, the idea that Europe might move out of U.S. assets is a commonplace inside investment banks right now. At UBS, Paul Donovan told clients earlier this week, “The implications of additional tariffs are more U.S. inflation pressures and a further erosion of the USD’s status as a reserve currency. So far, bond investors do not seem to be taking the threats too seriously.”

This morning he said that the most likely scenario wouldn’t be investors selling U.S. debt but simply refusing to buy new debt, thus reducing the flow of funds that the America is dependent on.

In a tariff war, one under-discussed weapon at Europe’s disposal is its Anti-Coercion Instrument: It has the power to ban U.S. services businesses from the E.U.

“U.S. services exports to the E.U. were $295B in 2024, equivalent to 0.9% of US GDP, suggesting the harm could be much greater if the E.U. pulled this relatively new lever at its disposal than if it responded simply with tariffs, though its economy would be hurt more too,” Pantheon Macroeconomics analysts Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen told clients.

“In short, nobody would win from a new trade war, but the E.U. has ample scope to harm the U.S. if the Greenland situation escalates,” they said.

Here’s a snapshot of the markets ahead of the opening bell in New York this morning:

  • S&P 500 futures were up 0.19% this morning. The last session closed down 2.06%.
  • STOXX Europe 600 was down 0.4% in early trading.
  • The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was flat in early trading. 
  • Japan’s Nikkei 225 was down 0.41%.
  • China’s CSI 300 was flat. 
  • The South Korea KOSPI was up 0.49%. 
  • India’s NIFTY 50 was down 0.3%. 
  • Bitcoin was down to $89K.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Match Group says a ‘readiness paradox’ is crippling Gen Z in dating

Published

on



Gen Z is sometimes criticized for its proclivity toward slang or its approach to the workforce. But this generation is facing challenges very different from those of their elders. The young adults are slowing down their pursuit of the American Dream of finding “the one,” owning a home, and having kids.

But it’s not because Gen Z doesn’t want to find love, according to a report by Match Group and Harris Poll shared exclusively with Fortune. In fact, their survey results from 2,500 randomly selected U.S. adults shows 80% of Gen Z say they believe they’ll find true love, making them the most optimistic generation about finding love. Yet, only 55% of Gen Z feel like they’re actually ready for partnership. 

Therein lies the “readiness paradox,” a phenomenon that paralyzes Gen Z from taking that initial step toward a serious relationship, and subsequently toward marriage and having children. While more than half of Gen Z says they feel lonely despite having online connections, 48% of Gen Z women report feeling additional pressure to enter a relationship for “the right reason,” rather than solely to avoid loneliness. This cycle traps young people in loneliness, which is amplified by social media pressures, like the dread of “hard-launching” a relationship. 

“It makes total sense to be stuck in that paralysis of, I want this, I want a relationship, but I don’t feel ready for it, and so I don’t do it,” Chine Mmegwa, head of strategy, corporate development, and business operations at Match Group, told Fortune. “What they’re afraid of is failing. What they’re afraid of is that the other person on the other side isn’t ready.”

Match Group defines this phenomenon as a “self-reinforcing cycle” in which Gen Zers set a high bar for readiness for a relationship, then feel anxious about being alone, then crave new relationships, believe they’re not ready for it and wait longer, experience more loneliness, and then the cycle repeats. 

And some of this cycle stems from the fact that Gen Z prioritizes investing in personal growth, therapy, and defining success over other generations. Nearly 60% of Gen Z women say therapy is essential to relationship success, according to the Match Group report, and almost 50% say that setting and respecting healthy boundaries is a prime indication of being ready for a romantic relationship. And as a result, they may be more likely to delay dating. 

This report serves as a launchpad for Match Group and other dating app companies to rethink how to best serve Gen Z consumers, some of which had ditched the apps when they did have features they could relate to. But now Tinder has introduced more casual modes for Gen Zers to meet each other, like through its double-date feature and college mode where the generation can meet more people with the same relationship goals in mind.

That’s a step in the right direction for a generation that is reverting back to a desire to meet in real life.

“This is the way Gen Z wants to connect,” Match Group CEO Spencer Rascoff previously said. “They want to vibe their way through meeting people.”

Reprioritizing milestones

Unlike how some other reports about Gen Z love life have portrayed the generation, they’re not rejecting romance. Instead, they’re reshuffling life’s timeline amid economic and social strains. 

Match Group’s report shows nearly half of Gen Z say they’re not ready for relationships now, and 75% aren’t rushing into one. But, again, 80% say they believe they’ll find true love.

“They believe that when they work on themselves, their relationships become stronger,” according to the Match Group report. “And they are more likely to wait until they can put their best selves forward to give themselves the highest chance of relationship success.”

Although that may sound like worrisome news for a company trying to appeal to the latest generation, Mmegwa didn’t shy away from the challenge. 

Gen Z is “still looking to our products to solve real big issues. And they are still looking to our products and to dating to solve the things that are most important to them” she said. “It’s just a question of when and how they will use our products that [is] very different from prior generations.”

This generation also has a very different view of how happy their own parents’ and grandparents’ relationships are: Only 37% described those relationships as happy, and 34% of Gen Z women also feel working through issues from past relationships indicates readiness, according to the report.

Social media’s vicious cycle

Being highly inundated by and invested in social media has also exacerbated the readiness paradox. While 46% of Gen Z “soft-launch” relationships versus 27% overall, 81% see it as an ironclad agreement, and dread backlash from a public failure. 

It’s different from how other generations view making relationships public: “You can also hard launch and then delete the photos the next day, and it’s okay,” Mmegwa said. 

But still, for Gen Z, relationship performance pressure creates a cycle: High readiness bars lead to loneliness, which ultimately leads to them pursuing lower-stakes or casual relationships that rarely escalate into something more serious.

Instagram exacerbates the stall. While 46% of Gen Z “soft-launch” relationships versus 27% overall, 81% who hard-launch see it as an ironclad commitment, dreading public failure. Mmegwa highlighted this generational shift: “You can also hard launch and then delete the photos the next day, and it’s okay.” This “performance pressure” creates a cycle: High readiness bars lead to loneliness (over 50% feel it despite online ties), prompting low-stakes connections that rarely escalate.​

“For us, the focus is on how we bring people together and encourage them to return to in-person connections,” Hinge CEO Jackie Jantos previously told Fortune. Hinge is part of Match Group, along with Tinder, Match, and OkCupid.

How Match Group plans to address the readiness paradox

Match Group is planning to meet Gen Z where they are: They’ll keep introducing “low-pressure” tools, like Tinder’s Double Dating feature and College Mode.

“The idea here is really around helping our users have the power to control what they’re looking for in a given moment and be able to find that more easily,” Cleo Long, Tinder’s senior director of global product marketing, previously told Fortune.

Using the report as a roadmap for new product plans, future features could include features like readiness signals, Mmegwa said, and more curated matches will be important. 

“It’s no longer a speed and volume game,” she said. “It’s [about] truly making our algorithms help you know yourself better, and then help you know the person on the other side of the connection better.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.