Let's say an SF company limits max pay for Kenya remote employs to 10% of the maximum that Texas remote employees would get paid for the same duties, which is in turn 80% of the max that Bay Area remote employees would get.
The the actual applicants, of equal ability, are a Kenya applicant who will accept a minimum of 10% of Bay Area pay, a Texas applicant who will accept 85% of Bay Area pay, and an Oakland applicant who will accept 100% of Bay Area pay.
The first two don't get hired because a mutually acceptable salary can't be agreed, the last one is and the company pays 10× what it needed to.
It makes some sense to scale offers based on factors that you think will shape what people will accept, except where this is prohibited by law (e.g., protected class), and location may fit within that [0]. But it doesn't make sense to adjust the limit of what you accept that way.
Of course, if you try to have a consistent transparent salary methodology, you either have to give up location-based offers or accept the inefficiency of location-based pay limits. But the whole point of salary transparency is to avoid the perception that people are being paid differently for the same work based on non-germane factors as a way of exploiting people from disadvantaged backgrounds, so why you'd keep location-based limits with transparency is beyond me.
[0] Or may not: location clearly correlates with various protected attributes, which may get you bit by disparate impact if location isn't measurably linked to value.