How steep should accelerators be once a rep passes 100% of quota?

For comparison, we are a 200-seller software business in the Netherlands: 1.0x to target, 1.75x from 100% to 130%, 2.5x above. Steeper than yours. It is affordable because the margin on the incremental deal is far higher than on the first one, and we show finance that sum every year.

I would push back a little on steep and uncapped as a default. In our case the 2x tier mostly rewarded reps who held December deals into January to start the next year ahead. We moved to quarterly measurement with an annual true-up and the sandbagging dropped noticeably.

What share of last year's over-150% group were also over 150% the year before? If it is the same handful of people in the same territories, that is a territory problem dressed up as a pay problem.

Seven of the eleven were repeats, all in two regions. That rather answers it. I ran the three-distribution cost model suggested above and the multipliers are fine at a normal spread. We are leaving the rates alone and rebalancing those two regions instead.