I wouldn't… and don't. I'm interested in the things I do, not wealth numbers to accumulate. I'm the guy behind airwindows.com and have been spinning off code to other open source music projects for some years now, and I've got a number of projects going and even life changes happening.
I'm still more interested in WHAT I'm doing than what the compensation is. The patreon arc of Airwindows is sort of peaking out and subsiding very gradually and I'm looking at what else I can do: if I'm compensated much less than minumum wage it begins to affect what projects I can take on as it'll erode my resources too much. Such is the lot of an open source dev who's used inherited money as capital :)
I'd work at Valve. Sounds fascinating, and a bit like the production work I've done: working with a band and getting the most out of their album, except it's an ad hoc group of devs and the 'album' is a game or software infrastructure. There will be people in such a situation who are maximizing their own wealth. Such people are only minor obstacles to getting the THING you're making, optimized. Basically if you're getting enough money anyway and they will let you have the thing needed on the grounds that they take too much credit, but the thing can be made, then let 'em have the credit as long as they're not screwing up anything important.
It's sufficiently obvious who is contributing and for what reasons. There will always be outside perspectives, including outside of me and whoever is credit-seeking for wealth maximization.
