From what I can deduce from the article I feel this is an investment approach. Just like every company CEO decides how much the earn and how the get paid, it is not out of place for Remixpoint CEO to do same he deserves any method of payment he chooses.
It's personal choice and when you are at a CEO position with better finance that employees, workers, you likely are able to be more comfortable with investment and such decisions.
We weren't told if the employees are to be paid in bitcoin as well. I don't think in a modern era as this employers will forces their employees to earn their salary using any currency outside their local fiat. The CEO of Remixpoint obviously doesn't depend on his salary for survival so this might be an investment approach in view.
They might do this or might not but even if they try it as a mandatory policy, it won't work well with so many risks of failure like I described. Workers have worse financial status than the CEO and they actually need to use all, most or part of their wages more than the CEO.
Not all people like Bitcoin and want to invest in Bitcoin and freedom is key to build up anything solid and sustainable including Bitcoin adoption.
Elsalvador case is a bit twisted because their is a case of country policy. In a country citizens have no choice but to accept what ever the government present to them as legal tender.
Don't think that if you fail with a company policy, you can apply that strategy on a nation policy and succeed or vice versa. A failed policy is wrong at some points or very fundamentals so it is hard to succeed by applying it to other companies or other nations.
