The vesting / payout theory makes no sense, firstly Twitter vesting at that point would be quarterly, so the company would be saving at most 1/16th of what those employees had already vested from their initial grant.
Secondly, it's the employees who would have the incentive to leave, not the company to fire them. Assuming a typical 4 year vesting period, it's right at this year when their compensation would have _dropped precipitously_.
Thirdly, the second individual had been at Twitter for more than 4 years, and unless they left and came back (doesn't look like they did), they'd still be vesting their original
equity grant. The amount of time they've been at the company isn't even common between the two, so I don't see why you'd use it to establish a theory.
Secondly, it's the employees who would have the incentive to leave, not the company to fire them. Assuming a typical 4 year vesting period, it's right at this year when their compensation would have _dropped precipitously_.
Thirdly, the second individual had been at Twitter for more than 4 years, and unless they left and came back (doesn't look like they did), they'd still be vesting their original equity grant. The amount of time they've been at the company isn't even common between the two, so I don't see why you'd use it to establish a theory.