Every project listed on Rezon shows a rate range. Not a range that has been worked backwards from a broker margin. Not an estimate of what an engineer might take home after fees are deducted somewhere upstream. The figure you see on a Rezon project listing is the gross amount — what the client has agreed to pay for the engagement, before anything is separated out.
This post explains exactly how we arrive at those numbers and how the fee structure works. We are writing it because transparency about the mechanism, not just the output, is part of what we are trying to build. If we only show you the rate but not how we calculate it, we have not actually fixed the opacity problem — we have just moved where the black box sits.
How rates are set: the client side
The rate on a project listing originates with the client. When a company submits a project brief through Rezon, they specify a weekly rate budget — the amount they are willing to pay for the engagement. This is a real number, discussed directly with the Rezon team and confirmed before the brief is published. It is not inferred, estimated, or adjusted by us before being displayed.
Some clients provide a single figure; others provide a range that reflects flexibility based on the specific candidate's experience and seniority. In both cases, what is shown on the listing is the actual client budget, not a number derived from it. If a client has budgeted ¥200,000–¥230,000 per week for a TypeScript engineer with AWS experience, that range is what engineers see on the listing.
This means that when you are evaluating a Rezon project, the rate figure is the same number that was used in the client's internal approval process for the engagement. There is no internal markup between what the client approved and what you see on the listing page.
Gross vs net — what you see, and why it matters
In traditional SES, the figure an engineer receives is a net number — what remains after one or more intermediary margins have been taken. The engineer usually does not know the gross figure, and the difference between gross and net can be substantial. Based on how the traditional SES chain typically works in Japan, engineers commonly receive between 60% and 85% of what the end client is paying, with the balance distributed across the intermediary layer in undisclosed proportions.
On Rezon, the figure displayed on every listing is the gross client payment. The Rezon service fee is then disclosed separately and is charged on the client side, not subtracted from the engineer's rate.
Here is what the structure looks like for a representative project:
| Line item | Amount (per week) | Paid by |
|---|---|---|
| Project rate (displayed on listing) | ¥200,000 | Client |
| Rezon service fee | ¥20,000 | Client (billed separately) |
| Engineer receives | ¥200,000 | — |
| Total client cost | ¥220,000 | — |
The engineer receives the full displayed project rate. The Rezon service fee is a separate charge to the client on top of that amount. The fee is disclosed to both parties as part of the matching process — clients know what they are paying for the service, and engineers know that the rate they see is the rate they will receive.
How the service fee is structured
Rezon's service fee is a fixed percentage of the project rate, billed to the client. The specific percentage is disclosed to clients as part of the onboarding conversation; it does not vary by engineer seniority, stack, or project type. We use a fixed structure deliberately, because variable fee structures create incentives to inflate rates or steer matching decisions in ways that benefit the platform rather than the parties involved.
We are not claiming our fee structure is the only valid model. Platforms can be designed differently and still be fair. What we are saying is that a disclosed, fixed fee charged to the client side — with the engineer receiving the full listed rate — is the structure that most cleanly preserves the alignment between the matching platform and the engineer it is serving. When the platform's income is a fixed percentage of the client's agreed rate, the platform has no incentive to push engineers toward higher-rate projects they do not actually want, or to recommend candidates to clients on any basis other than genuine fit.
Rate ranges vs fixed rates on listings
Some Rezon listings show a single weekly rate; others show a range. The range reflects genuine client flexibility based on candidate seniority and experience — a ¥180,000–¥220,000 range might mean the client has budgeted toward the lower end for a solid mid-level engineer and is willing to stretch toward the upper end for someone with more years of relevant experience or a specific domain background they value.
Where a range is listed, the matching conversation includes a direct discussion of where in that range a specific candidate's profile sits. This conversation happens between Rezon, the client, and the engineer — not behind the engineer's back. If a client's evaluation of a candidate places them toward the lower end of the range, that assessment and the resulting offer are communicated directly. Engineers can accept, decline, or counter. There is no position in the process where the rate is adjusted without the engineer's knowledge.
The practical implication is that rate negotiation on Rezon happens in the open, on information both parties actually have, rather than as a negotiation between parties with asymmetric information. Engineers who know the full budget range and their position within it are negotiating from an informed position. Clients who have disclosed their real budget are engaging with candidates who have made a genuine, informed choice to be interested in the project.
What this means for evaluating any platform or agency
Whether you work through Rezon or through any other platform or agency, the questions you should be able to get answered are: what is the gross rate the client is paying? What is the intermediary's fee, and who pays it? Is the number I am being offered the number I will receive, with no further deductions?
If a platform or agency cannot or will not answer these questions directly, you are being asked to accept an engagement without full information about its financial terms. That is the normal state of affairs in traditional SES, and it is worth recognising for what it is: an information asymmetry that is structurally convenient for the intermediary and structurally costly for you.
The mechanism we have built at Rezon — gross rate displayed, fixed fee disclosed, charged separately to the client — is our answer to that problem. It is not the only possible answer. But it is a specific, auditable structure, and you now have the full picture of how it works.
