[HN Gopher] 1 Year of Coinbase as a mission focused company
___________________________________________________________________
1 Year of Coinbase as a mission focused company
Author : dsr12
Score : 178 points
Date : 2021-10-08 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| "Mission focused company" is just such a funny euphemism for "I
| don't want my serfs getting distracted from making money for me
| by more important things"
| jrockway wrote:
| What mission did they focus on and how did it go? All I see here
| is "I wrote a controversial screed and many people tolerated it
| and kept showing up to work." That's great and all, but what sort
| of new things did it unlock? How do you compare it to the world
| where you didn't write the screed? It all feels like a heap of
| bullshit to me -- if you're in the right industry, you can be the
| worst manager on the planet and your company can still do okay.
| He's just saying that his household name company in a booming
| industry did all right last year. We all kind of expected that,
| it would be nearly impossible to not make money in Coinbase's
| position. (Like what if nobody merged any code last year and
| didn't launch any features? They'd still be doing great!)
|
| My controversial opinion is that companies like Apple and Amazon
| did well _in spite_ of their leaders ' quirks. AWS would have
| been a great business even if Jeff Bezos didn't fire people
| recovering from cancer. The iPhone still would have been a hit if
| Jobs didn't bring someone to tears over a bug in their code.
|
| I think you can make great products AND be nice to your
| employees, and maybe even let them discuss how black lives matter
| at work.
| disneygibson wrote:
| Did you read the tweets? He said that most stakeholders told
| him they were very happy with the mission focus.
| jrockway wrote:
| I just want to know what the mission was.
|
| Did they launch more features? Make more money?
| disneygibson wrote:
| The first tweet has a link to the blog post.
| staysafeanon wrote:
| >What mission did they focus on and how did it go?
|
| RTFA: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-
| comp...
| refenestrator wrote:
| Noisy echo chambers are uninclusive to anyone who doesn't hold
| that precise political viewpoint.
|
| We both know that the program goes way beyond "black people
| shouldn't be indiscriminately shot", its driven by people who
| are addicted to social media and perpetually pushing for
| another rush of outrage. I'd prefer not to be around that,
| personally.
| tims33 wrote:
| I think it is great the company went the direction they did and
| I'm glad Brian is happy with it.
|
| The commentary that I find frustrating is about the "retaliatory
| and intellectually dishonest hit pieces." The press does suck in
| many ways, but when you're own a massive chunk of a $65B company
| you should expect some negative press and be prepared. It makes
| him sound like he isn't open to dissent which is an incredibly
| privileged stance.
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| Love that Armstrong did this at Coinbase. I want to work at work,
| not worry about the political opinions of my coworkers.
| fleddr wrote:
| Just want to say how ridiculous this is from a European
| perspective.
|
| I know nothing better than for any company to be mission focused.
| You go to work to do work. And you do so with a degree of
| neutrality, as you can't pick your colleagues, yet still need to
| cooperate with them.
|
| This doesn't mean you can't say anything at all, it means you
| shouldn't be overly divisive or confrontational. A company isn't
| your personal Twitter playground.
|
| If you do have something political to say, a grave social justice
| error in the company's policy for example, you can still be
| reasonable about it. To mention it respectfully and proportional
| to the issue, rather than going nuclear.
|
| I work in a tech hub in Europe that has 80 nationalities, people
| from all walks of life. Any ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality,
| religion and political conviction you can think of and we all get
| along just fine with zero tensions.
|
| It's a joy actually, to work with people wildly different from
| yourself, whom you normally might not meet if it wasn't for work.
| We don't even have rules on politics, because they're not needed.
| Nobody brings politics or activism to work.
|
| This brand of aggressive identity-based political activism really
| is a manifestation of the deplorable state of US politics. It's
| really quite rich to take home 200K a year and feel oppressed.
| Such a thing is only possible in the US, the rest of the world
| laughs at you.
| afavour wrote:
| As a European living and working in the US: your comparison is
| very shortsighted.
|
| European countries literally have no legal concept of at-will
| employment. They have strong social nets that make quitting
| your job much easier, and more prevalent unions that fight to
| improve working conditions (all of these things are, gasp,
| political! incidentally)
|
| By comparison employment in the US is messed up enough that if
| you leave your job you lose your health insurance. Companies
| with great policies can sometimes retain employees on that
| basis alone! Is it _really_ any wonder that "politics" ends up
| being an issue in the workplace when your employer literally
| controls your access to healthcare?
|
| All of this stuff is emblematic of a deeply unhealthy
| relationship with employment in the US. Despite widespread
| agreement that this arrangement is bad, the US political system
| is broken enough that changing it feels all but impossible.
| CEOs like Brian are taking a hard stance against the effects
| while ignoring the causes.
|
| You're right that such a thing is only possible in the US,
| you're just wrong about the reasons why.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| > Companies with great policies can sometimes retain
| employees on that basis alone!
|
| So I recently quit a FAANG and they sent me a COBRA notice
| with the cost of their insurance benefit. You can get great
| FAANG insurance for about $10k a year, which is peanuts for a
| Silicon Valley engineer. We need to dispel the myth that
| Silicon Valley engineers are working for health insurance.
| bogomipz wrote:
| >"We need to dispel the myth that Silicon Valley engineers
| are working for health insurance."
|
| The OP was referring to US companies in general not FAANG
| companies, which are outliers by many measures. If you read
| the sentence before the one your quoting it provides the
| context:
|
| "By comparison employment in the US is messed up enough
| that if you leave your job you lose your health insurance."
|
| Also smaller companies generally pay significantly more per
| employee than a megacorp does. And this is the amount one
| assumes when COBRA kicks in. Also for 10K I'm guessing you
| have an individual plan and are not covering family
| dependents which would also add significantly to the
| premium.
| runako wrote:
| We need to dispel the myth that everyone that works at a
| Silicon Valley company is an engineer.
|
| Coinbase in particular will have legions of support people
| (who do you think answers the phone/customer emails?). I
| would bet that $10k (or maybe $15k for a family) is a
| meaningful fraction of the annual compensation for many
| roles at Coinbase.
| fleddr wrote:
| "who do you think answers the phone/customer emails?"
|
| In my experience, nobody at all.
|
| Sorry, it's a common crypto joke.
| bob229 wrote:
| If you think Britain has a "strong social net" then you are a
| total ignoramus
| 5560675260 wrote:
| > Is it really any wonder that "politics" ends up being an
| issue in the workplace?
|
| It's still a wonder for me, I don't follow your reasoning at
| all. How does this force people into being antagonistic and
| fighting over politics in the workplace? If anything, this
| should put a pressure on workers to not stand out and keep
| their mouth shut, so that they wouldn't risk loosing coveted
| employer-provided insurance.
| danans wrote:
| I was going to post this, but couldn't have said it better.
|
| The stakes of a job are quite a bit higher in the US, and it
| goes beyond healthcare.
|
| The quality of a great many social foods in the US, from
| primary schooling to transit access and many others, are
| governed by your job. The social safety nets that exist kick
| in only at the extremes, of destitution (Medicaid) or age
| (Medicare).
| fleddr wrote:
| I think we're mixing up different political topics here.
|
| The one I think you're talking about is the US workers'
| struggle to defend or increase basic worker rights. Which
| indeed is a political struggle of workers versus management.
|
| If I'm not mistaken, the Coinbase case is about social
| justice types of topics like feminism, BLM, trans rights,
| colonialism, the like.
| afavour wrote:
| My point is that positions like Brian's require there to be
| a clear and bright line between "political" and "not
| political". I think it's at least slightly easier to draw
| that line in European workplaces where the nature of
| employment is not as politically fraught.
|
| Just to take two of your examples: feminism and trans
| rights. Both have healthcare implications. Your employer
| controls your healthcare. Should the healthcare provided by
| your employer cover birth control? Abortion? Conversion
| therapy? This mix is inevitable.
| fleddr wrote:
| We might as well call it what it is: troublemakers.
|
| People that are so politically activist at work that they
| dis-proportionally impact the business. By sowing
| division, distracting from the work, spoiling morale. And
| sometimes worse, like stealing data or airing dirty
| laundry publicly.
|
| I'm not going to touch the morality of it, I'm merely
| painting the picture of what it is.
|
| There's more companies where this is an issue, Google had
| plenty such incidents, Basecamp, Facebook, the like.
| afavour wrote:
| I can't help but feel like you've made your mind up and
| aren't interested in listening to any other perspective.
| Your reply addresses absolutely nothing in the post it's
| replying to. Perhaps we just leave the conversation here,
| I don't see it going anywhere fruitful. I wish you all
| the best.
| fleddr wrote:
| I'm open to different perspectives but you're not even on
| topic. Let me simplify it even further: Brian fired the
| woke.
|
| The thing you're talking about, worker conditions, is not
| what the article is about. It's not a different
| perspective, it's an entirely different topic.
|
| But anyway, have a good day regardless.
| tomp wrote:
| Why should _any_ insurance cover elective procedures? You
| could also add things like beauty surgeries, hair
| transplant, lasik surgeries etc. (I know that EU
| insurances often cover birth control, but I think that 's
| mostly because it's a drug prescribed by a doctor so it
| fits into the framework... I don't think it should cover
| birth control (except maybe for young people before they
| start working) - that's not _insurance_ , it's just a
| _subscription service_ so you 're better off buying it
| directly.)
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| If Coinbase employees didn't feel they can weigh in on
| what their health insurance should cover, I would
| certainly agree that's a problem, but I'd be very
| surprised if that's the case. Armstrong's announcement
| acknowledged that there will be some cases where
| political engagement is inevitable because it intersects
| with the company's business. Remember that this position
| came in direct response to an incident where Coinbase
| employees demanded that the company publicly endorse a
| specific political slogan on the topic of police
| brutality - regardless of how blurry the line is in
| general, I hope we can agree that Coinbase's business
| doesn't have much to do with the police.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| I always hear this argument that the employer controls
| your health care in the U.S. and it is quite wrong. The
| employer MAY offer one or more options for a subsidized
| health care plan in which the employer contributes some
| or all of the cost of the selected plan. There is zero
| requirement for an employee to select or use such a plan,
| and there is absolutely nothing stopping an employee from
| seeking an alternative plan or additional uncovered
| treatments through other means available to them.
|
| Maybe there is a point to be made about the overall cost
| of health care plans being too expensive for an
| individual to afford without the employer subsidy, but
| that is orthogonal to "employer control" of healthcare.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| > Maybe there is a point to be made about the overall
| cost of health care plans being too expensive for an
| individual to afford without the employer subsidy, but
| that is orthogonal to "employer control" of healthcare.
|
| No, it's not. A choice in which the alternative is
| unattainable (or simply worse) is a Hobson's choice, and
| the direct result is that Americans with full-time
| employement are dependent on employer-subsidized
| healthcare.
| dntrkv wrote:
| I don't see how at-will employment is related here.
|
| This is Coinbase. The vast majority of the employees there
| are not stuck in a job they wish they could leave but can't.
| These are some of the most privileged employees in the world.
|
| The bigger issue is like the OP stated, the state of politics
| in the US. How does at-will employment relate to issues like
| not working with certain government institutions because you
| disagree with their purpose?
|
| Coinbase isn't trying to avoid political arguments over
| healthcare, they're trying to avoid employees rallying
| together and changing the company to further their personal
| political beliefs.
| jsiepkes wrote:
| Aside from that your comparison with Europe is quite flawed
| (there are plenty "at-will employment" type of constructions
| possible here, you don't get unemployment benefits if you
| quit yourself, etc.) these are all tech workers who have new
| employers lining up to hire them. They are not blue collar
| workers in an Amazon warehouse who have to relieve themselves
| in a bottle and get terminated by an algorithm for failing to
| meet quota's.
|
| But besides all that I fail to see how any of what you just
| said are arguments to make the workplace a political Twitter-
| style fight pit?
| gruez wrote:
| I don't get it. You argue that employment is more tenuous at
| US companies for various reasons... therefore employees want
| to stick their necks out by engaging in politics? Shouldn't
| we expect the opposite?
| slownews45 wrote:
| I used to work with kids in an international program. I had a
| hard "mission focused" rule. Most of the social justice type
| advocacy talk about political topics would be banned under this
| rule (along with a lot of other stuff about back home like what
| they owned etc).
|
| Kids whose parents would have hated each other getting along
| well, making friendships, etc. In the long run, seeing this
| humanity in each other (I think) will contribute more to some
| large benefits than always going to war on every issue.
|
| Some examples - Student (jewish) whose dream was to join IDF to
| kill "terrorists" vs kid whose parents were palestinian (and
| hated jews). The kid who talked trash about blood transfusions
| for some reason - with a friend whose medical form had a
| history of them. Some crazy wealth disparities (the private jet
| kids with the extended passport filled with stamps vs kid who
| saved mowing money to go on program).
|
| Stripped of all the baggage from back home (and with no cell
| phone / internet access etc), working together (outdoor
| program), no parents spoiling them (for the spoiled ones) or
| whaling on them (one or two parents from south still do this) -
| very cool to see what happens (in most cases).
| fleddr wrote:
| A beautiful story, thanks for sharing.
|
| I can only attest from both travel and work that exposure to
| other cultures and peoples destroys any and all bias.
| [deleted]
| olegious wrote:
| Having worked in both (EU and US) I have seen both sides. I saw
| the trend (identity based politics) starting to appear in tech
| in Europe, for example "we shouldn't try to win business from
| company X due to their stance on issue Y" came up multiple
| times in company all hands (500 person company).
| president wrote:
| Just know that there is a large majority of Americans that hold
| this view but don't speak up due to potential of being
| cancelled or fired.
| fleddr wrote:
| I wouldn't expect anything else, and the article basically
| confirms the point.
|
| It shows the massive divide between the Twitter world and the
| real world. Nobody wants real life Twitter.
| saurik wrote:
| > If you do have something political to say, a grave social
| justice error in the company's policy for example, you can
| still be reasonable about it. To mention it respectfully and
| proportional to the issue, rather than going nuclear.
|
| > Any ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, religion and political
| conviction you can think of and we all get along just fine with
| zero tensions.
|
| This really sounds like you are blaming the black employees at
| Coinbase for standing up for themselves, and that if they just
| sat back down and took whatever hand they were being dealt that
| there would be "zero tensions"... which I guess hinges
| awkwardly on what you mean by "tensions"?
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/coinbase-crypt...
|
| I encourage you to read this article--which, FWIW, I'm sure is
| one of the articles Brian Armstrong here is calling a "hit
| piece" in his Twitter thread--as this wasn't merely some
| abstract issue of "politics": black employees at Coinbase felt
| they were being actively discriminated against.
| fleddr wrote:
| Sorry, I lack the privilege to read that article.
| finiteseries wrote:
| Here you go:
|
| http://archive.today/EMPL2
|
| _Be kind. Don 't be snarky. Have curious conversation;
| don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't
| sneer, including at the rest of the community._
|
| _Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not
| less, as a topic gets more divisive._
| fleddr wrote:
| I wasn't trolling, I really can't read it. Also not on
| that archive link.
| Aunche wrote:
| One thing that I've noticed is that Americans are hyper-focused
| on raising awareness. Most people should realize that Coinbase
| making a statement about BLM would lead to zero progress
| towards the advancement of Civil Rights. However, for some
| people, it's so important that they'd sacrifice their job for
| it.
| [deleted]
| tinyhouse wrote:
| > Just want to say how ridiculous this is from a European
| perspective.
|
| What is ridiculous? What Brian said? the response? I'm not
| following.
| fourstar wrote:
| It's ridiculous in his homogenous untainted bubble. Guy is
| doing mental gymnastics with himself to appear morally
| superior.
| fleddr wrote:
| Saying you're a mission focused company and this being
| somehow controversial is ridiculous. Every company should be
| mission focused.
|
| As his post demonstrates, it turns out to not be
| controversial at all. A handful of people left and after a
| few weeks the Twitter mob stops. Then you're left with
| reasonable people to do the job, which is the point of any
| company.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| > I work in a tech hub in Europe that has 80 nationalities,
| people from all walks of life. Any ethnicity, sex, gender,
| sexuality, religion and political conviction you can think of
| and we all get along just fine with zero tensions.
|
| I'm sure this statement is not true, (racism and sexism don't
| exist in Europe now?) but even supposing it is, there are very
| few companies in the U.S. that are this diverse. And the state
| of our labor rights in comparison to the EU is atrocious. In
| the first place, at-will employment, a right wing policy, is to
| be blamed for how easy it is to fire people for political
| reasons.
|
| It's easy to strawman an anonymous group of "aggressive
| identity-based political activists", much more difficult to
| reckon with the real differences in the political economy of
| the EU vs the U.S.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| Sure there are. Have you walked into any FAANG office? There
| are a huge variety of West/East European nationalities and
| East/Southeast Asians. That's representative of over half the
| world's population right there. You can probably find an
| engineer from every single one of the ex-Soviet countries in
| an NYC Google office.
|
| I suppose by diversity you mean the right kind of diversity
| then?
| [deleted]
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| FAANG is not the tech industry. Are you saying every
| company has as large and international a recruitment pool
| as Google? But again, that's what this convo is really
| about -- the perceptions and prejudices that tech
| libertarians develop based on the perceived behaviors of
| less than 1% of employees at 5 tech firms. Hilarious.
| fleddr wrote:
| "Diversity" can be so confusing and misunderstood.
|
| The example I gave, extreme diversity, is not the standard
| in my country, this tech hub is the exception. I've also
| worked in teams consisting of only white men.
|
| The inconvenient reality is that I couldn't detect a
| meaningful difference in the quality or quantity of output
| in either team. As said, I did enjoy the increased
| diversity from a personal perspective, so there's that.
|
| The reason for the roughly equal output is that the team of
| white men was also diverse. Pointing at a group of people
| with the same skin and concluding they're all the same is
| ignorant. It's factually untrue. Likewise, assuming a team
| is diverse/better due to them having a mix of ethnicities
| or other aspects, may also not be the case.
|
| Don't get me wrong, there are cases where it matters, but
| also cases where it doesn't.
| fourstar wrote:
| Which euro country? Seems like you haven't experienced the
| workplace woke-ism yet. Don't worry, though. It will be soon in
| every euro country that isn't already. After all --- globohomo
| wokeness is America's biggest export.
|
| Good on Coinbase and I'll vehemently defend them for it after
| experiencing it first hand.
| zapita wrote:
| What is "globohomo wokeness"?
| refenestrator wrote:
| My band's name.
| ayngg wrote:
| Coinbase hits a unique intersection of outrage here since it
| provokes vitriol from both people who hate cryptocurrency, and
| those that are outspoken progressives, both of which are large
| demographics on HN.
|
| Like when you think about it, how is this a big deal in any
| way? I think the fact that people are making a big deal out of
| it is a bigger deal than whatever Coinbase's internal practices
| are here.
| saurik wrote:
| > One of the biggest concerns around our stance was that it would
| impact our diversity numbers. Since my post, we've grown our
| headcount about 110%, while our diversity numbers have remained
| the same, or even improved on some metrics.
|
| My understanding is that they started off really bad, right? They
| had 3/4s of their black employees resign _before_ that post and
| were at 3%. I guess they could have gotten worse, but being proud
| to be where you were when this whole thing started is a bit
| awkward.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/coinbase-crypt...
|
| > One by one, they left. Some quit. Others were fired. All were
| Black. The 15 people worked at Coinbase, the most valuable U.S.
| cryptocurrency start-up, where they represented roughly three-
| quarters of the Black employees at the 600-person company. Before
| leaving in late 2018 and early 2019, at least 11 of them informed
| the human resources department or their managers about what they
| said was racist or discriminatory treatment, five people with
| knowledge of the situation said.
|
| Numbers aside, this thread is really difficult to take seriously
| due to the (hypocritical) inclusion of this tweet, which seems to
| undermine the rest of his thesis (that speaking up for things you
| believe in is a distracting waste of time that is bad for
| business).
|
| > The biggest lesson I took away from the whole ordeal is that if
| you believe something is the right path, it's worth speaking up
| about it, even if it's controversial.
|
| And also like, did anyone actually disagree that being a profit-
| driven company can be profitable? The tl;dr of this entire thread
| to me is "putting profits above people and morals was every bit
| as profitable as I thought it would be: thus, I'm vindicated".
|
| I would expect to see the same thing from Big Tobacco, Big Oil,
| Big Copyright, etc.... we also see this same argument from
| companies like Apple and Facebook: "we are making tons of money,
| and so our actions are not only useful, they were _justified_ ".
|
| > While the media reports were mostly negative, and it even
| spawned some retaliatory and intellectually dishonest hit pieces,
| the reaction both from employees and people I spoke to in private
| was overwhelmingly positive.
|
| Finally, the issue I have here is that the vast majority (again:
| we are talking 97%) of Coinbase employees are not black, which
| calls into question this entire metric: an "overwhelmingly
| positive" reaction from the overwhelming majority is...
| underwhemling.
| celeduc wrote:
| > the reaction both from employees and people I spoke to in
| private was overwhelmingly positive.
|
| Overwhelming positive reaction from subordinates (whose
| paychecks he signs), and peers who are also tech/finance bros.
| Sounds like a statistical universe to me!
| bob229 wrote:
| Social justice and crypto are both cancer
| RNCTX wrote:
| What's the mission?
|
| Not being a reliable financial exchange, I hope, they already
| failed at that. (1)
|
| [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/coinbase-says-
| hacke...
| gwelson wrote:
| The thing I hate about this line of thinking is the supposed
| "distractions" of being mission-focused are nearly all related
| simply to basic rights/dignities for marginalized groups. I don't
| think anyone is saying companies need to take a strong stance on
| every political issue, but merely saying "we as a company believe
| the lives of our Black employees matter" or "we as a company
| welcome and accept our LGBTQ+ employees and don't tolerate anyone
| who doesn't" are just...basic things you need to do in 2021. They
| aren't a distraction, I would say _not_ saying them is a
| distraction.
|
| In all of the discussion around the blog post from Armstrong last
| year and the similar discussion around Basecamp, I never once saw
| an example cited of these so-called distractions from being
| mission-focused that wasn't just affirming the basic dignity of a
| group of people. I don't understand why doing so should be
| controversial. Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support
| the right of Black people to not be killed randomly and of LGBTQ+
| people to exist simply doesn't belong in polite, modern society.
| How is this controversial?
|
| I simply cannot imagine working at a place that doesn't recognize
| the humanity of their workers. Utterly baffling and heartless
| mindset.
| poszlem wrote:
| There is a difference between people/companies that believe
| that lives of black people matter and those that claim that
| BLACKLIVESMATTER. There is a difference between
| people/companies that believe that women need to have the same
| rights as men and those that claim to be feminists. There is a
| difference between people/companies that believe that
| gays/lesbians are normal people and those who put rainbows
| everywhere.
| saurik wrote:
| FWIW, in this case, that "difference" might be that Coinbase
| was simultaneously treating their black employees poorly--
| dare I say, as "second class citizens"--while actively
| refusing to take a few seconds to agree with something as
| banal/obvious as "black lives matter". The BLM statement
| struggle was merely a catalyst for what were already existing
| and somewhat long-standing racial tensions brewing inside the
| company that had led people to feel that, with its actions,
| the company did _not_ in fact care about its black
| employees... context you can 't just pretend didn't exist
| going into Brian's "let's not talk about this and everyone go
| back to work" post.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/coinbase-
| crypt...
|
| > The tensions at Coinbase came to a head in June, after the
| police killing of George Floyd. As many tech leaders publicly
| voiced support for Black Lives Matter protests, Black
| employees at Coinbase said on the Slack messaging platform
| that they were hurt by the silence of Mr. Armstrong and other
| executives about the matter. They organized a meeting where
| several of them told executives, often through tears, about
| their difficult experiences at the company, eight people who
| attended said.
|
| Take careful note: this wasn't "merely" "our difficult
| experiences in the world", this was "our difficult
| experiences _at the company_ ". Seriously: too much of this
| comment thread seems to be hyperfocused on the BLM issues--as
| I guess y'all really think taking a few sentences and a
| couple sentences to acknowledge that in solidarity somewhere
| is somehow a horrible distraction--while ignoring that this
| had started in the background of "Coinbase is mistreating its
| black employees so much that it had already lost 3/4s of
| them" (and that's before Brian's post, so a lack of strong
| improvement since then is telling). This is way more concrete
| than these abstractions.
|
| > But according to 23 current and former Coinbase employees,
| five of whom spoke on the record, as well as internal
| documents and recordings of conversations, the start-up has
| long struggled with its management of Black employees.
|
| > "It was the first time I realized what racism felt like in
| the modern world," said Layllen Sawyerr, a compliance analyst
| who is Black. "I felt like I was being bullied every day at
| work." She said she filed a discrimination complaint with
| Coinbase's legal department before quitting in 2018.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >I never once saw an example cited of these so-called
| distractions from being mission-focused that wasn't just
| affirming the basic dignity of a group of people.
|
| You are free to affirm whatever you want, and have all sort of
| discussions about society at large when your aren't being paid
| for your time by someone else to do a job that has nothing to
| do with affirming groups of people.
|
| >I simply cannot imagine working at a place that doesn't
| recognize the humanity of their workers. Utterly baffling and
| heartless mindset.
|
| Its baffling to me that so many people feel entitled to espouse
| their social and cultural beliefs in the workplace instead of
| doing the job they are being paid to do. The way a workplace
| recognizes the humanity of their workers is by offering good
| wages, good hours and a generous benefits package.
| mrRandomGuy wrote:
| This just in, people who also happen to work are not mindless
| automatons. People like working at places that seem to align
| with their own personal views.
|
| It's baffling to me that people believe I should turn off my
| brain when I'm at work.
| dmix wrote:
| > 3/ One of the biggest concerns around our stance was that it
| would impact our diversity numbers. Since my post, we've grown
| our headcount about 110%, while our diversity numbers have
| remained the same, or even improved on some metrics.
|
| If there one thing I've learned from Reddit is at scale a
| sentence like this often means they've established a dominant
| monoculture and squashed out the 'annoyances'..
| poszlem wrote:
| If there is one thing I've learned from a company that went
| woke was that the supposed diversity that it reached was merely
| superficial.
|
| They hired people from all the minorities necessary and ended
| up with culture that was even more monolithic than before. No
| dissent allowed.
|
| I am a bisexual dude, and nobody at work (sans my closest
| friends) know about it because it's none of their business. I
| did not disclose it during my interview, I don't want them to
| ask me about it.
| skadamat wrote:
| Can we just all talk about ... how poorly designed the map
| visualization they chose was?
|
| What are these clown colors, so many different ones.
| aaomidi wrote:
| How has the diversity of talent changed in this one year?
| fay59 wrote:
| Charitably, "don't want to be distracted by politics" means "the
| status quo works for me". This doesn't mean anyone at Coinbase is
| ill-intentioned, but given the status quo, there's a lot of
| people it won't work for.
| gorwell wrote:
| Every company that continues to let itself get embroiled in
| Twitter's Political Topic of the Week is at such a distinct
| disadvantage it will ultimately fail. It's inevitable if you
| extrapolate. They won't survive the evolutionary process and will
| get selected out, only earning themselves a Darwin Award.
|
| Imagine a rowing team where half the team rows in one direction
| and the other half rows another direction. They never agree on
| which direction to row and the direction constantly changes. Even
| if it's just a dedicated 5% rowing somewhere else, it's going to
| throw the whole boat off course. Or they're not rowing at all and
| just yelling at each other on Slack all day. Compare with a team
| that focuses on the mission, all rowing in the same direction.
| It's not hard to see who is most likely to reach the finish line.
|
| The age old wisdom of not bringing your personal politics and
| religion into work is wisdom for good reason.
| emsy wrote:
| At least they would be rowing, but political activism is not
| work. Imagine going to the barber and instead of cutting your
| hair he would lecture you on the hardship of Guatemalan
| shepherds.
| notafraudster wrote:
| Barbers famously talk about politics while cutting your hair.
| This is like a quintessential part of barber shop culture.
| Barbers that don't talk about partisan politics normally talk
| about some parapolitical thing, like cultural gripes, or
| sports, or other things that have a pretty similar valence.
|
| I've had my hair cut in like 5 different countries by dozens
| of different barbers who speak different languages, come from
| different generations, the barber themselves are male or
| female, and I don't remember the last haircut that didn't
| bring up something that was either explicitly or expansively
| political.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Brian is just a guy who has thin skin, and needs to be
| surrounded by yes-men.
|
| This need for constant adulation is so strong that he did a big
| thread on Twitter whining that billionaires might stop being
| CEOs because it's "not fun" to be criticized by the media.
|
| He's not going for alignment on things that matter. He's just a
| thin-skinned, whiny, weak little bitch who needs to be
| surrounded by yes men.
| facet1ous wrote:
| So in fairness I haven't followed this in the news very closely,
| but after initially feeling negative about this decision I've
| started to come around to it.
|
| US politics has become extremely draining, divisive, and
| aggressive - particularly in high partisan-lean areas. It's flat
| out exhausting talking with people about politics, even those who
| I agree with, and it just gets worse every year. Polling has
| shown people sort themselves by political ideology first and
| everything else in life second. I see fewer and fewer options
| available, but to just run from it. I don't see it getting better
| any time soon.
|
| The company I previously worked for spent an enormous amount of
| time (and money) facilitating discussions appeasing these divides
| and focusing on social justice, etc. Not only is there no hope
| for any given company to realistically solve for societal-wide
| problems or find an approach that satisfies everyone in this
| manner, but it's painfully obvious they don't truly care about
| these topics either. Having people come "talk" about racism or
| putting on inclusion workshops doesn't result in real action.
| Things like "diversity" are mangled and manufactured into company
| metrics where data is awkwardly bucketed by "ethnicity". Are we
| expected to believe HR departments who group half of the world
| together as "Asian" as taking diversity seriously? I've come away
| from every company I've worked for with the cynical impression
| that that their "social justice" efforts are simply to minimize
| inner anger, strife, and liability. And for leaders, if you
| commit to being a "politically engaged" workplace it means
| everything you do is twice as vulnerable. You are walking on
| eggshells even if you aren't instigating any sort of animosity -
| what if you weren't paying attention to the news and didn't speak
| up about a particular political event? What if you didn't say
| enough? What if you were misinterpreted? I can understand why
| Coinbase doesn't want to go there anymore - they can achieve the
| same goal if nobody says anything at all.
|
| I'm not arguing nefarious forces don't exist or aren't important.
| I care deeply about many of the commonly-discussed social issues
| that we're dealing with today. I've personally witnessed blatant
| racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination first-hand at
| work. But those things can be solved for at a company level -
| trying to treat our general political environment is well beyond
| anything any corporation can manage nor should we expect it to be
| their responsibility. Companies should focus on refining things
| that are in their control, like practicing transparent & fair
| hiring, enforcing anti-discrimination policies, and ensuring
| equal-opportunity internally. But I think you can fairly draw the
| line there.
| chroem- wrote:
| The amount of frothing vitriol in this thread makes it clear that
| Armstrong made the correct choice. Public discourse in the Bay
| Area has become completely toxic.
| strategyanalyst wrote:
| This nation is extremely divided. I don't think you can run any
| organization that is political effectively.
|
| Even completely political organizations will have to control
| political discussions at workplace. US Government is moving
| into that direction and we are seeing a far less political
| Senate and Congress that is rarely focussed in any discussion
| as a joint entity. The two teams in legislative bodies rarely
| 'talk' to each other on political topics. Most discussions are
| now procedural and political debate in almost all public forums
| is completely dead.
| sagichmal wrote:
| I'm always so delighted that when someone says something
| stupid, and people say that it's stupid, there's precisely this
| response somewhere in the comments. It's just so (chef's kiss)
| perfect and wonderful.
| ergocoder wrote:
| My anecdote: Someone mentioned they didn't agree with looting
| during BLM, and you could see the disgust coming from their
| coworkers.
|
| The political activism gets so ridiculous that we have to cheer
| for looting because it is tied to BLM... for whatever strange
| reason.
|
| And this is looting shops in Seattle, which overwhelmingly
| supports BLM. You can bet those shop owners probably won't
| support BLM anymore...
| emsy wrote:
| Not only that, but you can see why places like Twitter need 4
| years to change a font. It looks like tech in general is
| undermined by highly unprofessional people and this whole
| thread is a testament to that.
| qqtt wrote:
| > we're operating in an environment of virtue signaling and fear
| of speaking up.
|
| Well, which is it? Are people speaking up too much (virtue
| signalling), or not enough (fear of speaking up)? Perhaps the
| people speaking up aren't saying what you want to hear, and you
| imagine a hidden majority of people who agree with you that you
| can convince yourself you are right, through a "invisible
| argument of authority" towards these abstract people who you know
| exist but don't speak up out of fear, but surely agree with you
| and outnumber the other voices.
|
| I find the usage of the term "virtue signalling" a bit
| disappointing. Yes, there are a subset of opportunists who are
| dishonestly using social platforms for their own gain - but such
| people are in such a minority that pretending they should
| dominate the conversation is throwing the baby out with the bath
| water.
|
| People are trying to organize to make society better, more
| inclusive, right the systematic wrongs of the past, and build a
| better future. Dismissing the majority of these people with a
| dismissive term like "virtue signalling" is not only being
| insensitive, it's callous and belittling.
|
| The first thing you should realize is that the "virtue
| signalling" happening is due to voices being oppressed and voices
| not being heard for too long. There are uncomfortable
| conversations that need to happen and these voices should be
| heard.
|
| It's all good and fair that you decided those conversations
| should not happen in the context of your company and to make the
| judgement as a leader that it serves only as a distraction, but
| to use a callous term like "virtue signalling" in the context of
| these conversations shows the true character of the person
| conveying this message - and personally, that is not a leader I
| would want to follow along with any mission.
| cbtacy wrote:
| Must be nice to have such privilege and entitlement.
| [deleted]
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Coinbase is an exceptionally political company, run by a CEO who
| is incredibly whiny, demanding that nobody criticize him in any
| manner other than not doing business with him.
|
| He is thin-skinned, weak, and lacks the strength, backbone, and
| will required to remain successful as a leader, particularly of a
| company that will always have some controversy.
|
| His new stance as a hyper-political leader, who leads one of the
| most politically charged companies in existence is the reason
| that I have stopped doing business with coinbase. Unfortunately,
| I have some eth staked there that I cannot withdraw, but I look
| forward to an eventual future where I never do business with them
| again.
|
| Other exchanges work well and don't have a permanent victim
| complex.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Glad to see leaders showing a spine and taking a stand against
| the institutional takeover
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institu...)
| we've seen elsewhere from activists, particularly at tech giants
| like Google or Facebook or Amazon. I often see vague claims that
| "everything" is political, but it is pretty easy to use one's
| common sense and separate out what is political and what isn't.
| Bringing politics to work makes it hostile towards large cohorts
| of employees and customers, and distracts from the mission, which
| is to provide utility to customers in a viewpoint- and
| politically-neutral manner. Other companies need to revert to
| that neutral way of operating again, and get rid of employees who
| spend more time on personal advocacy than doing their job.
| lettergram wrote:
| My favorite is the recruiting page for coinbase. Which imo is
| overtly political
|
| https://www.coinbase.com/careers
| krrrh wrote:
| I don't see any political statements on that page that aren't
| aligned with creating an "open financial system for the world &
| increasing economic freedom". The point isn't to not be
| political, it's about not being political about stuff that
| isn't related to the mission.
| justinsaccount wrote:
| > The biggest lesson I took away from the whole ordeal is that if
| you believe something is the right path, it's worth speaking up
| about it, even if it's controversial.
|
| Unless you work at Coinbase, right?
| m_ke wrote:
| It's only ok on Twitter
| https://mobile.twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1445604556...
| asabjorn wrote:
| You are still free to speak up about anything relating to work
| responsibilities. However, if your goal was to do activism to
| institutionalize and enforce critical social justice (CSJ)
| dogma into the company you are correct that is not allowed.
|
| Coinbase certainly made itself more viewpoint inclusive by
| making it impossible to act within the company as a CSJ
| procelyte is required to do. An CSJ procelyte is expected to
| try to institutionalize the faith by enforcing the Diversity
| (hiring activists of all identities - a black conservative is
| not diverse), inclusion (censorship of people resisting CSJ DEI
| initiatives), and Equity (redistribution of outcomes based upon
| identities and adherence to CSJ) agenda.
|
| I work at a company that has heavily institutionalized CSJ, and
| CSJ procelytization is quite distracting from our core mission
| and is actively creating a non-inclusive culture to other
| viewpoints&faiths. Almost every day I get emails about this
| faith, there are almost daily meetings (services) about it,
| almost every company-wide meeting spends time preaching about
| it, every facet of the buerocracy enforce CSJ dogma, and we are
| demoralizing the workforce by hiring as well as promoting based
| upon DEI principles instead of trying to achieve meritocracy.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| You missed the point, he doesn't want employees to bring
| political activism (I seem to remember BLM was the trigger),
| controversial company politics is well accepted
| young_unixer wrote:
| You wouldn't go to a PETA meeting and complain that there's no
| meat.
|
| In that same vein, if you join Coinbase, you should know what
| you're getting into, maybe it's political, but it's a kind of
| political that you knew beforehand. The problem comes when you
| try to shoehorn a different set of political beliefs onto
| something that didn't have them in the first place.
| xibalba wrote:
| It's pretty easy to dunk on people when you divorce their words
| from the surrounding context.
|
| This statement was within the context of advising
| organizational leaders who are trying to "keep the peace" (and
| thus, inadvertently enabling distraction and morale rot)
| instead of creating clarity and focusing the mission.
| tshaddox wrote:
| That's exactly what the parent commenter is saying: that this
| principle apparently holds true _unless_ it 's in the context
| of certain things that Coinbase doesn't want its employees
| talking about.
| afavour wrote:
| Yeah that made me laugh, too. Feels like the word "politics" is
| very effective when used to limit your employees: you have
| something you feel strongly about in the workplace? Fantastic!
| Oh, it's "political" (and yes, I'll be the one determining what
| qualifies)? Well then no bueno, sorry. We're mission focused.
| rglover wrote:
| He's not being political, he's getting his company to focus.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Focus _on what_ , exactly? Bitcoin is not exactly an
| apolitical industry.
|
| But even more generally: Armstrong's profile on Twitter
| includes his (ostensible) mission of "creating more
| economic freedom in the world." That's a _very_ political
| mission, even by milquetoast American standards!
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _Focus on what, exactly?_
|
| Focus on building a successful profitable company.
|
| Surely you just pretend to not know this?
| woodruffw wrote:
| > Focus on building a successful profitable company.
|
| Through what means, exactly?
|
| We're not talking about a candy company here. This is a
| company that _explicitly_ includes political messaging in
| both their mission and in their choice of means (i.e.,
| cryptocurrency) towards that mission. Why the double
| standard?
| gorwell wrote:
| They have chosen a specific mission. The point is to
| focus on said mission, not N missions. If you want to
| work on a different mission, work at a different company.
|
| Why do people find this so hard to understand?
| woodruffw wrote:
| Nobody is saying that they have to focus on _N_ missions.
|
| The only claim is that their mission is a political one,
| and not even for the trivial reason of "everything is
| political."
| rglover wrote:
| Focus on building a company that generates a return for
| investors and makes it possible to pay all of the people
| who work at Coinbase.
|
| Anybody who works there and disagrees with what the
| company is doing can quit and go work somewhere else
| whenever they please.
|
| You need to pull your head out of your belly button. The
| navel gazing you were taught at university is going to
| ruin your life and make you perpetually miserable.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Nobody disagrees about his basic financial mission! He's
| a CEO, and that's what CEOs (are supposed to) do.
|
| The farce here is in claiming that Coinbase's mission is
| somehow "apolitical," even beyond the standard (&
| correct) observation that everything is political: they
| are _explicitly_ a financial services company with a
| political message of economic freedom. They are
| _explicitly_ advocates for an _explicitly_ political form
| of monetary exchange.
|
| When Armstrong says "mission focused," he really means
| "consistent with Coinbase's politics." And that's okay.
| But it's ridiculous to dress it up as some kind of
| apolitical position.
| dntrkv wrote:
| Certain politics are relevant for certain companies.
|
| This idea that because everything is touched by politics,
| you should be free to bring every aspect of politics into
| any organization is ridiculous.
|
| Coinbase should be involved in the the political
| discourse surrounding crypto (and other finance-related)
| legislation. They should not be involved in the discourse
| surrounding a woman's right to abortion (just an
| example).
|
| If you think crypto should be banned, you probably
| shouldn't work at Coinbase. On the other hand, your
| opinion on abortion should have no bearing on whether you
| work there. It has nothing to do with their company
| mission.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > Coinbase should be involved in the the political
| discourse surrounding crypto (and other finance-related)
| legislation. They should not be involved in the discourse
| surrounding a woman's right to abortion (just an
| example).
|
| I don't agree with this, but to be clear: you're arguing
| for something _very_ different than Armstrong is.
| Armstrong is saying that Coinbase _isn 't_ besmirched by
| _any_ politics, which is patently false -- their entire
| mission is explicitly political.
|
| As for why I don't agree: political positions are not
| hermetic. It wasn't acceptable in 1961 for lunch counters
| to "not be involved" in desegregation, because "not being
| involved" is tantamount to support for segregation in a
| segregated society. But again, to be _very_ clear: this
| is _above and beyond_ the claim that Armstrong is making.
| afavour wrote:
| Deciding what your employees are and are not allowed to
| discuss at work feels pretty political to me!
|
| But you're right: Brian gets to decide what is and isn't
| political, and he's decided that he isn't being political,
| so he isn't. Which is an... interesting power to hold over
| your employees, hence my original post.
| rglover wrote:
| You want it to be political to fit the narrative in your
| head, but it isn't political.
| afavour wrote:
| Brian, is that you?
| rglover wrote:
| No, I'm brown and I have hair.
| malermeister wrote:
| Focus on "the mission", which is itself an ancap political
| project.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Precisely what I thought, thank you. What a stunning lack of
| awareness.
| ohazi wrote:
| Unless you're _labor_. Capital can speak up about whatever it
| wants (so long as it doesn 't start sympathizing with labor, of
| course)
| Grimm1 wrote:
| You're paid to do a job. Politics is for your personal time.
| We need to work on getting more personal time for people so
| people can focus on those passions instead of further
| blending work and personal life.
| emsy wrote:
| That's actually an insightful comment. Of course if you do
| sports, eat and socialize at work so that the company can
| keep you there for 12 hours people have no other possible
| outlet for their political activism.
| clumpthump wrote:
| Want workers to have more personal time? Encourage people
| to "be political" at work.
| garrickvanburen wrote:
| Your job is to support and maintain the policies of your
| employer. That's inherently political.
| rhcom2 wrote:
| > We need to work on getting more personal time for people
|
| Which was the original goal of unions, something I would
| think would count as being "political" at work.
| walls wrote:
| > You're paid to do a job.
|
| And then the company you work for takes the profits from
| that effort and donates it to politicians to further the
| executive agenda.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > We need to work on getting more personal time for people
|
| You mean controls on working hours? Four day weeks? There
| are those who'd say that was extremely political (and
| they'd be right; the two day weekend was largely invented
| by the labour movement, surely the epitome of politics at
| work, back in the day).
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Work time ceases to be work time when your hours on the job
| take up more than a quarter of the time in a calendar day,
| and that's probably the maximum upper limit, in honesty. As
| societies we have structured our adult lives around a
| window from 9 to 5 in which we are supposed to work and
| also interface with every other adult that works.
|
| It's an untenable situation at best.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > You're paid to do a job. Politics is for your personal
| time.
|
| It's remarkable how easily we've forgotten that the very
| concept of "personal time" took _decades_ of sustained
| political effort at the workplace.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Sustained political effort - in spite of the established
| rules. Every one of those people risked their jobs and in
| many cases their health and life fighting for those
| rights against laws and established order. People today
| want their cake and to eat it to. They want the people
| who made an economic exchange for their labor also let
| them do things that work directly against their "the
| purchaser's" interests. How about people organize mass
| strikes? Scared of losing their jobs? Too busy? Not
| enough time? The OG labor movement had all of that and
| dealt with violent opposition to boot. Maybe things
| aren't that bad and it's a minority whining? I don't know
| but something isn't adding up to me.
|
| How about people decide to take action -- regardless of
| the consequences to themselves instead of worrying about
| maintaining the scraps they're fed in the process? Why is
| today so much different than yesterday that people don't
| want to risk their standing and their lives for their
| principals and expect it just to happen, to be given? All
| the whining is just theatre as far as I'm concerned until
| people start actually making the hard decisions and doing
| something at risk to themselves for what they believe.
|
| Why do people seem so hypocritical compared to the people
| during those decades you mention?
|
| The owners of Coinbase made a stand for what they believe
| in, I support that. Maybe the otherside of the table
| needs to take that collective action they talk so much
| about instead of talking.
|
| Edit: And you know I'm not sorry but I just don't feel
| bad for office workers bitching about their jobs. I feel
| bad for the front line workers, in the stores in the
| warehouses in logistics and shipping. They actually have
| real gripes to contend with being physically worn down
| everyday yet we lump the person sitting in their office
| chair reading reddit for 8 hours with these people
| actually killing themselves to get you a package a couple
| hours sooner.
|
| Note: This isn't aimed at you directly but very much what
| I feel is the superficialness of many movements today.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| The difference between traditional union organizing and
| the social justice crusaders here is that the unions were
| fighting management to improve the material well being of
| the workers. They wanted more sick leave, higher wages,
| etc.
|
| The present-day crusaders are attacking their fellow
| employees (who disagree with them) as well as customers
| (trying to get customers who disagree with them dropped).
| They are most certainly _not_ fighting management.
| Management gets involved in those cases where it tries to
| stop one of the crusading employees from harassing
| another employee or customer, at which point there are
| demonstrations to try to get the enemy coworker or
| employee dropped.
|
| That is why this is not at all like the unionization
| efforts of the past.
| brailsafe wrote:
| In the same light, I'm also not paid to believe in some
| ludicrous "mission". That's something for my personal time
| in GTA. Unless I have genuine equity, in which I stand to
| gain from the company's overall success. In that case
| though, I should also have some level of say in what I can
| talk about at work.
| rglover wrote:
| I'm going to take a wild guess and say if you work at
| Coinbase--voluntarily--you're extremely well paid. You're the
| farthest thing from a victim. Just because you can't raise
| your fist and scream at your coworkers doesn't mean you're
| oppressed.
| ohazi wrote:
| Capital vs. Labor is an attitude that can be completely
| divorced from the unit economics of how much people are
| paid. Capital is the owner class that calls the shots,
| Labor is the people who do the work.
|
| "Shut up and do the work, or GTFO" is a statement that only
| Capital can make, and it's a statement that can only be
| directed at Labor.
|
| When the topic being quelled is a conversation about
| fairness within the ranks of Labor, and between Capital and
| Labor, the picture is crystal clear: "Capital says no, and
| you (Labor) will comply."
| woodruffw wrote:
| This is the kind of parallel argumentation that tech
| workers (and their managers) make against unionization
| ("you're too well paid to need a union").
|
| It misses the point -- they don't need to be "oppressed" to
| be justified in talking about politics at work, the same
| way they don't need to be underpaid to be justified in
| unionizing. Each is a perfectly sufficient end in itself.
| malermeister wrote:
| Just because you're part of what is called "Labor
| aristocracy" in Marxist discourse doesn't mean you can't
| recognize the exploitation inherent to the system.
|
| You don't need to be on the losing side of an unjust system
| to recognize the system as unjust.
| rglover wrote:
| So quit.
| malermeister wrote:
| Sounds like the entire argument went way over your head.
|
| Quitting doesn't change anything about the inherently
| exploitative relationship of labor and capital.
| rglover wrote:
| I'm not allowed to reply to you directly but responding
| to your response to "so quit," okay, go live on a commune
| then. Live your values and demonstrate to the world why
| your way of life is better.
| malermeister wrote:
| Living on a commune is giving up. The current order must
| be overthrown, everything else is just implicitly
| endorsing exploitation.
| emsy wrote:
| Why do people think work is an appropriate place for political
| activism?
| woodruffw wrote:
| That's a great question for the Coinbase CEO!
| jiscariot wrote:
| If I had to pick one cause, it is google's "bring your whole
| self to work" policy.
| xibalba wrote:
| Because liberal arts higher education has been completely
| usurped by Postmodernism and Marxism, and it indoctrinates
| students with the belief that everything everywhere is
| politics, always. This mentality has infected "liberal"
| intellectualism outside the academy, to the point where it
| is, essentially, the "culture" of much of the Left in the
| U.S.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Have you considered that people have reached those beliefs
| after observing and reflecting on how they perceive the
| world to work? Why are you so sure it's "indoctrination"
| when people come to a conclusion that doesn't comport with
| your worldview?
| woodruffw wrote:
| > Because liberal arts higher education has been completely
| usurped by Postmodernism and Marxism
|
| Having actually gone through an undergraduate philosophy
| program in the United States: Marx is a blip. He's _barely_
| taught in analytical programs, which are (overwhelmingly)
| the dominant discipline in American colleges. Postmodernism
| isn 't even mentioned. I spent more time reading Nozick and
| other politically right-of-center philosophers than I did
| reading anything _resembling_ left philosophy.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| Define what you believe Marxism to be. It isn't a buzz word
| for anything to the left of Reagan.
|
| And everything is politics. A political system could decide
| to outlaw computers and the internet. How would your SaaS
| business survive then?
| orwin wrote:
| "Usurped" as in : never ever there was this much progress
| in history and linguistic since the postmodern invested the
| fields, and now that postmodernism is present in the
| archeology field, we have done discoveries that were not
| even envisionned before. For some reasons it was taken a
| bridge too far (imo, but i can be wrong, i'm not really
| interested in the field) in sociology, but still, never
| read anything better than Bourdieu.
|
| Also, Postmodernism in philosophy and sociology is built
| against Marxism (and Freudism), so i don't really
| understand the association here.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Because it's historically been one of the most important
| parts of the political sphere?
|
| It's a very new thought that work should be apolitical.
| vkou wrote:
| Because managers and directors feel that it is. They
| generally feel that it's an appropriate place for pushing
| _their_ politics. (And complain loudly when employees do the
| same.)
| throwawaysea wrote:
| It's not that anyone thinks it is appropriate - they _know_
| it is inappropriate. It 's more that they don't care, and are
| willing to do whatever it takes to leverage the power of
| institutions (such as companies, universities, and government
| agencies) to fulfill their personal political and ideological
| goals. This is a well-known strategy for activism,
| particularly on the left, and even has a name - "long march
| through the institutions" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long
| _march_through_the_institu...). Some call it "entryism"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism). As we've seen in
| American tech companies, once a foothold is gained, these
| motivated activists immediately start to loudly push for the
| aggressive exclusion of opposing views, and cancellation of
| all who belong to a different political group. Signaling
| consequences for opposition leads to self-censorship from
| others, which in turn helps further cement the perceived
| institutional consensus around the activists' platform. This
| strategy is ultimately effective, both because institutional
| takeover can build silently and become visible suddenly, and
| because company leaders are often too timid in exercising
| their power to shut down or fire such disruptive employees.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| _> As we 've seen in American tech companies, once a
| foothold is gained, these motivated activists immediately
| start loudly push for the aggressive exclusion of opposing
| views, and cancellation of all who belong to a different
| political group._
|
| Reminds me of a cryptocurrency exchange with an activist
| CEO who forbids dissenting political views in the
| workplace. Can't remember his name.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| This looks like a textbox case of the "Paradox of
| Intolerance" by Karl Popper, does it not?
| ABeeSea wrote:
| That wikipedia article doesn't support your claims at all.
| fullshark wrote:
| Why do companies try to inspire employees with things beyond
| purely mercenary motivations?
| sethherr wrote:
| Because mercenary motivation is in and of itself a choice.
| If everyone was motivated by money alone there wouldn't be
| non-profits. There is clearly a market for occupations with
| different incentives.
| fullshark wrote:
| Sounds like both sides are generally looking for more
| from the labor arrangement than simply keeping the lights
| on.
| sethherr wrote:
| Absolutely! You spend the majority of your awake time at
| work. Some people optimize for money, others optimize for
| status, happiness or any other objective humans can have.
|
| I think the thing that really upsets people is that the
| company changed course. People who go to work at a HFT
| firm are probably all motivated by compensation - and
| would expect that, because it's baked into the company
| culture and business model.
|
| People choose to work somewhere based the reward it
| offers. If that changes, without their consent, it breaks
| an unwritten contract.
| tptacek wrote:
| Because that's part of the premise of a society governed in
| large part by the free market. That's an idea I support, but
| it only makes sense if market power isn't amoral. Tech
| company employees wield some of the most important power in
| our markets.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"a society governed in large part by the free market"
|
| I disagree and have a much more simple explanation.
| Activists naturally want to involve as many people as they
| can in their cause/struggle. By framing _everything_ as
| political, they open up opportunities to proselytize in
| areas traditionally not appropriate for 'politics'.
|
| If you couple that with a cultural expectation that people
| _must_ take a side, and, that simply not being a [bad
| thing] is not enough, you must be actively anti-[bad
| thing], and you 've got the current climate Brian Armstrong
| is trying to avoid.
| tptacek wrote:
| That's how it's supposed to work. If you're a team member
| and don't agree with the proselytizers, you don't add
| your market power to theirs.
| malermeister wrote:
| Everything you do is implicitly political. To say you're non-
| political is just another political position itself -
| complicity with the status quo.
| fleddr wrote:
| Whilst technically correct, I still object. Many if not
| most things aren't political in a meaningful way, but
| surely you _can_ make them political.
|
| This is how you get "water is racist" and the entire
| movement of social justice becomes a thing of ridicule. The
| strategy harms, it doesn't help.
| malermeister wrote:
| How about this: Every economic interaction (which
| includes employment) is political. Would you agree with
| this?
| refenestrator wrote:
| Cryptocurrency is a huge climate problem -- why is the
| opposition to coinbase all about social justice takes
| from twitter?
|
| It's not political, it's fashion.
| fleddr wrote:
| No, not at all.
| emsy wrote:
| I will think about it the next time I buy an old
| lawnmower on craigslist.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| I hope you properly paid sales tax on that purchase, if
| required, as the political system in many US states
| requires you to.
| emsy wrote:
| If I take a dump I have to ensure to dispose it properly,
| because the fecal disposal is tightly regulated by many
| states, therefore taking a dump is a political issue.
| fleddr wrote:
| That's lawnmower ageism.
| imtringued wrote:
| Take one step back. The interaction might not be
| political in itself but the desire to be able to engage
| in it might be. As others said, buying a lawn mower isn't
| political. Demanding that the product you are buying is
| safe and that economic transactions are done with USD or
| Bitcoin is definitively political.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How about this: Every economic interaction (which
| includes employment) is political.
|
| "Economics" and "politics" are just different lenses for
| viewing interactions relating to the distribution of
| power (equivalently, control of scarce resources.) They
| are the same thing; economic interactions are political
| _and vice versa_ ; economic power is political power _and
| vice versa_ , etc.
|
| This is also why capitalism (enabling the private
| accumulation of economic power) and democracy (involved
| the egalitarian distribution of political power), despite
| both initially being advanced by the same moves away from
| the particular structure of the monarchic/feudal
| concentration of both, are fundamentally in tension and
| ultimately incompatible.
| azornathogron wrote:
| When I go for a walk with a friend, is that political? When
| I play a puzzle game on my computer? When I read The
| Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? When I cook dinner?
|
| I suggest that there is much activity in life that is not
| political.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear that when people say
| "everything is political" the "everything" is scoped
| specifically to scenarios where there is a decision to
| make and people disagree on how to make that decision.
|
| When someone says something like "meat is political" I
| don't think they mean that the physical substance on the
| dinner plate has this property, but rather that there are
| decisions to make that directly involve meat which people
| disagree about, and that politics is the (or at least one
| of the) processes by which decisions get made by groups
| of people when individuals in the group disagree.
| imtringued wrote:
| I agree, a lot of free market arguments just boil down to
| maintaining an imagined status quo. What I take issue with
| is that the real status quo is an unspoken rule that
| everyone understands but nobody ever talks about. Most of
| it boils down to appeal to nature in the form of "the
| strong rule over the weak" and actual freedom for all
| people is basically irrelevant.
| staysafeanon wrote:
| >complicity with the status quo.
|
| This is a non-argument because "status quo" can be
| construed as anything and everything. It boils down to
| "you're either with us or against us."
|
| "If you don't actively support my pet cause on women's
| rights to own hand guns in California, it means you support
| the status quo. You support women being murdered and
| victimized without any recourse because you want to disarm
| them when they need it most! Supporting the status quo on
| gun rights is supporting women victimization!"
| mattparcens wrote:
| The status quo is not necessarily a bad thing, for instance
| if you have a lot of activist coworkers who want to "burn
| the system to the ground," then I, for one, become a huge
| supporter of the status quo.
|
| One must remember that things can always get worse.
|
| Just because there exist concrete problems in society does
| not mean that you, or activist coworkers get to assume that
| you're/they're automatically right nor that you/they have
| workable solutions.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Brian Armstrong has literally said he has a plan for
| Bitcoin to surpass the dollar as a reserve currency
| within the next decade [1]. _That_ , to me, is an
| activist who wants to "burn the system to the ground".
|
| [1] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/coinbase-ceo-bitcoin-
| surpass-dolla...
| imtringued wrote:
| It doesn't make sense because the whole idea of having a
| reserve currency is stupid to begin with and it was
| discovered to be stupid in the 40s.
| disneygibson wrote:
| Without food, you can't survive, therefore everything is
| implicitly about food.
|
| This line of thought is absurd. Words have definitions and
| boundaries for a reason.
| ygaitonde wrote:
| > Without food, you can't survive, therefore everything
| is implicitly about food.
|
| This, but unironically.
| asabjorn wrote:
| Do you by complicity [1] mean the critical social justice
| concept that all white (or people that believe in classical
| liberal culture) people are complicit in the maintenance
| and harms of systemic racism (stopping a perfect equity
| utopia) and white supremacy (continuation of
| individualistic western liberalism, instead of collectivist
| group-based critical social justice)?
|
| [1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-complicity/
|
| Edit: changed terminology from "classical white" to
| "classical liberal" culture. It diverges from critical
| social justice dogma by doing this, making my attempt at
| communicating with a Critical Social Justice adherent less
| in their language, but is hopefully clearer.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| What is "classical white culture?" I'm not aware of any
| global culture associated with skin color. But feel free
| to enlighten me.
| Jensson wrote:
| USA has this strange notion where they group people by
| skin color and call that race and assume same skin color
| has same culture.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > USA has this strange notion where they group people by
| skin color and call that race
|
| No, we don't. (There's _two_ races where _one_ of the
| common, not-generally-offensive names for each refers to
| a color, but people identified and identifying with each
| of those races have a wide range of skin colors,
| overlapping with those of most other races in both
| cases.)
|
| > and assume same skin color has same culture.
|
| No, we generally don't.
| asabjorn wrote:
| >> USA has this strange notion where they group people by
| skin color and call that race
|
| >No, we don't. (There's two races where one of the
| common, not-generally-offensive names for each refers to
| a color, but people identified and identifying with each
| of those races have a wide range of skin colors,
| overlapping with those of most other races in both
| cases.)
|
| Correct, most people do not believe that skin color
| define them or their neighbor. The notion also generally
| does not make much sense, as Americans are incredibly
| racially mixed.
|
| However, a very aggressive and powerful minority that
| believe in critical social justice are enforcing racial
| stereotypes.
|
| To say you are defined by race is a bit like saying you
| are defined by nose size. It is an arbitrary trait
| amongst many.
|
| >> and assume same skin color has same culture.
|
| >No, we generally don't.
|
| That is the Coinbase CEOs experience. People generally
| falsify preferences in public in order to not offend any
| Critical Social Justice activist that may ruin their life
| for saying the wrong thing.
|
| However, generally Americans are friendly and welcoming
| people that just want to live a good simple family life
| next to good neighbors of any creed.
| asabjorn wrote:
| Because I was communicating with someone I believe is a
| critical social justice (CSJ) adherent I was trying to
| use the language from that faith. However, I changed it
| as it may overall be confusing.
|
| What I meant was classical liberal culture, which by CSJ
| adherents is termed as white culture by perpetrating
| whiteness. Whiteness is not about color, although its
| assumed all white people by default are this, but is
| about you adhering to liberal western culture instead of
| CSJ dogma.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Hard disagree. Sometimes being apolitical is just a desire
| to not get involved and has nothing to do with supporting
| status quo.
| malermeister wrote:
| Not getting involved always means at least tacitly
| supporting the status quo.
|
| To think otherwise is just an expression of privilege.
| There is no being apolitical.
| Jensson wrote:
| Always making things about politics is sign of a
| privilege, unprivileged people don't have the time and
| energy to constantly care about politics.
|
| You can see this that the more privileged you are the
| more likely you are to vote, to petition and engage
| yourself etc.
| fleddr wrote:
| Nonsense.
|
| Silence means just that, silence. It could mean anything:
| I don't know. I don't care. I might care but don't have
| time to look into it. I care but it's not in my top 10
| issues.
|
| None of these options support the status quo.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| I doubt quoting MLK will change your mind, but
| considering what the Black community in America went
| through for 100's of years; it's worth consideration...
|
| >Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about
| things that matter.
|
| >Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere
| ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
|
| >The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who
| remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.
|
| >The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in
| moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands
| at times of challenge and controversy.
|
| >The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty
| by the bad people but the silence over that by the good
| people.
|
| >We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
| silence of our friends.
|
| >Pity may represent little more than the impersonal
| concern which prompts the mailing of a check, but true
| sympathy is the personal concern which demands the giving
| of one's soul.
|
| >Shallow understanding from people of good will is more
| frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of
| ill will.
|
| >The first question which the priest and the Levite asked
| was: "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to
| me?" But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: "If
| I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"
|
| >In the End, we will remember not the words of our
| enemies, but the silence of our friends.
|
| >He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it
| as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil
| without protesting against it is really cooperating with
| it.
|
| >History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of
| this period of social transition was not the strident
| clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of
| the good people.
|
| >Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light
| of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive
| selfishness.
| fleddr wrote:
| Change my mind about what? I was merely explaining how
| you can't draw strong conclusions based on silence.
|
| But I do love MLK quotes:
|
| "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
| live in a nation where they will not be judged by the
| color of their skin but by the content of their
| character."
| woodruffw wrote:
| It occurs to me that the content of one's character
| includes one's propensity for not being silent!
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"just another political position itself - complicity
| with the status quo." / "To think otherwise is just an
| expression of privilege. There is no being apolitical."
|
| The challenge I have with this line of thinking is that
| you can literally apply it to _any_ and _all_ issues. The
| number of problems in the world are effectively infinite
| but our ability to take a meaningful position is finite
| and extremely limited. The default state of being is to
| not have taken a position on something.
|
| To insinuate that someone is privileged for not getting
| involved is a cudgel and a guilt-tripping tool being used
| against someone who doesn't share the same priorities as
| you do. It strikes me as "if you're not with us, you're
| against us", a sentiment that used to be loathed in the
| early 2000's but is now accepted and expected.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > The challenge I have with this line of thinking is that
| you can literally apply it to any and all issues.
|
| That's not a challenge to this line of thinking, it's
| just another way of wording the exact same thing.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I suppose I could have said "The problem I have with..."
| instead.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| I mean yes and no. Yes there are infinite problems and
| there will always be worse of people who I could do
| things for. Guilt tripping someone into addressing all of
| them is unprodictive.
|
| On the other hand, the fact that I can choose which
| struggles I engage with, and am able to avoid ones I
| don't want to involve myself in _is absolutely_ a
| privilege. Someone who may need an abortion may not be
| able to avoid caring about that issue. Someone less
| economically secure may not be able to avoid worrying
| about unemployment or healthcare policy. There 's
| countless similar examples.
|
| You can absolutely acknowledge that you don't have the
| spoons/time/interest to deeply invest yourself in every
| social cause or issue. But you should also recognize that
| there are tons of people who also don't have the
| spoons/time/interest either, but have to anyway because
| the issue affects them and they can't afford to ignore it
| either.
| cortesoft wrote:
| It is impossible to remove politics from your work. If you
| try to ignore everything except the mission of making money
| at work, that ALSO is a political choice...
| urda wrote:
| > It is impossible to remove politics from your work.
|
| It absolutely is and this statement is either not informed
| enough or is being argued in bad faith. Unless your job is
| involved in direct politics or government.
|
| I do not need my peers or coworkers bringing in politics to
| the workspace. Politics is a disease that seems to be
| seeping in everywhere because a vocal minority thinks every
| moment needs political involvement.
|
| It does not.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Because work equals social mobility, and if a workplace
| excludes certain demographics they will remain socially
| immobile.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| augustl wrote:
| He said this on Twitter, and I believe Coinbase employees are
| allowed to say whatever they want on Twitter?
| sergiotapia wrote:
| "We have a much more aligned company now, where we can focus on
| getting work done toward our mission. And it has allowed us to
| hire some of the best talent from organizations where employees
| are fed up with politics, infighting, and distraction."
|
| BIG takeaway. The people on your team attract similar kinds of
| people to your team. Good for Coinbase. Lots of good lessons
| here.
| sagichmal wrote:
| They lost almost half of their engineering team. Product
| development has almost stalled. I dunno, man.
| mikeklaas wrote:
| Do you have a source for that?
| sagichmal wrote:
| Friends in engineering at Coinbase?
| teg4n_ wrote:
| This man spends way too much time on Twitter and not enough time
| learning the rules and regulations of the industry the company he
| leads participates in.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| The mission is off track. He should stop listing garbage and
| stick to Bitcoin.
|
| Crap like that shiba inu token are absolute scams, like most
| EVM tokens. They do nothing, add nothing, and trading them on
| chain just enriches the miners, or off chain, the exchange. Say
| what you like about dogecoin, at least it's a long standing L1
| blockchain with developers and history/transactions.
| hnxs wrote:
| "sir this is a casino"
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| Right. It's a shame that the CB mission went from
| decentralizing and empowering individuals with BTC to
| scamming and gambling on shittokens in just a few years.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You can't convince someone of something when their
| enormous wealth depends on them not believing or
| understanding (not Coinbase or Brian Armstrong specific,
| general observation). People can and do perform Olympic
| level mental gymnastics to justify their belief systems.
| arcticbull wrote:
| They're all basically the same. All the arguments you have
| against anything not-bitcoin apply to bitcoin except bitcoin
| is older and way more power intensive. Doge is a better
| currency for a lot of reasons. Also its funny. List one, may
| as well list 'em all.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| They aren't the same. I'm not knocking dogecoin -- it's a
| real Nakamoto blockchain, a real working product. I'd
| rather folks bought BTC but hey, any software fork of
| Satoshi client is better than the scamfactory enabled by
| Eth.
| qeternity wrote:
| > I'd rather folks bought BTC
|
| Why? Presumably because you're long BTC. With all due
| respect, you make a lot of handwavy comments about ERC-20
| scams and I agree with you, but aside from a highly
| speculative investment, BTC is nothing.
|
| It failed as a currency. It failed as a unit of account.
| Now the narrative has shifted to "store of value" which
| only anyone without an understanding of what that means
| could say.
|
| What does BTC do that DOGE doesn't do? Or any other scam
| coin? It's all speculation, you have happen to find one
| more acceptable (and it so happens the one you're
| probably invested in).
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| It's the energy. Energy usage means security. ArcticBull
| will argue it's bad, I'll argue it's the best thing ever.
| Follow the energy.
|
| Why has it failed? Works fine for me and many others...
| niyazpk wrote:
| > Energy usage means security
|
| Umm.. No.
|
| "More energy = More security" is a slogan now being used
| to scam non-technical users to buy into the crypto
| ecosystem, but that does not make any sense if you are
| willing to think about for a second. Also very convenient
| that this slogan started getting popular when BTC started
| getting bad press for energy usage.
|
| BTW how you reach consensus on a chain is different from
| how the accounts in the chain are secured. Just because
| all BTC nodes are burning up electricity all the time
| does not mean that your accounts are more/less secure.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| I am not a non technical user, and I know how this works.
|
| Btw, you are not correct. The entire history of the chain
| and balances is protected by the hashrate. With
| sufficient energy you can rewrite history. This is
| because every block secures the blocks before it. Yeah
| checkpoints can be used to force a known sync point, but
| this vastly undermines the decentralization of the chain.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I'd argue that it has no negative feedback mechanism.
| More security isn't always useful. There's a reason you
| don't wear 25 seatbelts in a car or drive a tank to work.
| At some point more security is ineffective, and then
| eventually detrimental.
|
| Yes, more energy is more security in this case - which of
| course you can obtain in alternative ways. But so is
| driving a tank. So is living in bubble wrap in a missile
| silo in the middle of an open field. We don't do those
| things, though, because we have negative feedback
| mechanisms. Bitcoin does these things (analogous
| versions) because it doesn't.
|
| And as for why it's failed as an L1, it set out to be a
| digital cash. 2-3tx/sec isn't enough to support a mid-
| sized Costco or a flea market let alone a global
| currency. 1 transaction per person on earth today would
| take over 75 years and cost 1/3 of a trillion dollars,
| and 100% of the remaining block reward. It's like a
| soviet-era phone line - better put in your order early, I
| guess.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| I don't think a negative feedback cycle could exist that
| doesn't introduce a huge vulnerability to a Nakamoto
| consensus. It is the pure externality of the metric (as
| opposed to chain balances or state) that makes it work in
| a trustless and censorship resistant way. How does one
| even decide a reasonable "limit" to hash rate. I want
| sufficient security such that when new power generation
| tech comes online it does not threaten the history of the
| chain. If we have to drive a tank to work, ok, better
| than getting hit by stray rifle fire on the highway.
|
| I think the reality is no L1 can scale to digital cash
| for the everyone on planet to allow L1 txs. we need more
| layers and more innovation in transaction aggregation and
| transaction primitives, such as covenants.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| They are in on it. Listing it on the exchange automatically
| causes a surge in value, what wouldn't you know it, the
| exchange had just bought a whole lot of coins in preparation.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > This man spends way too much time on Twitter and not enough
| time learning the rules and regulations of the industry the
| company he leads participates in.
|
| I can't think of a more hated CEO in the Cryptospace since
| Jihan Wu, who also spent quite a lot of time on social
| media/Twitter lambasting his users and detractors. A few years
| later he would be ousted by the CCP from his own company and
| was licking his wounds from his failed attempt to hi-jack
| Bitcoin after having loss majority hashing power and near
| exclusive manufacturer of miners. (Maybe Mark Karpeles, but
| even then he served his time in prison and after having his
| life ruined by the Japanese legal system and most just feel bad
| for the guy.)
|
| To be honest, Strike is going to disrupt Coinbase business
| model sooner than later and the valuation of Coinbase is the
| very definition of froth.
|
| In all seriousness, I can't wait to see Coinbase's and
| Armstrong's collective demise,
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| My favorite thing is when he tweets his own ignorance of the
| regulations of his industry.
| https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14354392917153587...
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| I think the reality is that Coinbase is so obviously a rocketship
| that the CEO could say anything and they'd have no trouble with
| recruitment or retention. Existing employees have stock grants
| worth millions, and new employees are getting great offers. The
| people who will take these jobs are generally going to be bullish
| on crypto. If you expect crypto to become a bigger piece of the
| economy in the future, it would be crazy to give up the
| opportunity to own a bunch of Coinbase stock. I'd spend a year
| listening to Brian Armstrong tell me that my thetans need
| adjusting for 5000 shares of Coinbase.
| woodruffw wrote:
| It's a story as old as time: investors (and employees with
| equity) will put up with just about any yahoo and their
| dictates (and noxious politics) as long as the money keeps
| rolling in.
|
| The pathetic handwringing here about "virtue signaling" and
| Coinbase's struggles is the height of farce.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| COIN has lost 25% since IPO (in that time, GOOG, FB, MSFT,
| AAPL, HOOD are up, PP is even, and SQ is down marginally), and
| their offers aren't particularly better than <anywhere else>,
| so it doesn't seem like this is true.
|
| Like, even if you think crypto is going to be super relevant,
| there's _tons_ of other cryto startups. Coinbase has or had
| first mover advantage, but that 's no longer an enormous
| advantage.
| jcliff wrote:
| Something that I don't think is widely appreciated enough is
| that Coinbase Ventures holds chunks of many of these
| startups.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Coinbase's stock is currently approximately equal to the IPO
| price and the IPO was six months ago. Coinbase and Robinhood
| (another rocketship) both experienced a pop after their
| respective IPOs and later dropped back down near IPO price.
| This isn't a particularly relevant metric, in my view. At the
| IPO, the rocketship factor is already priced in. Look at the
| company's trajectory over the decade it has existed.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > Look at the company's trajectory over the decade it has
| existed.
|
| The decade where it wasn't "mission focused"?
| mbesto wrote:
| > there's tons of other cryto startups.
|
| Where in your analysis do you talk about how these other
| crypto startups have (1) easier onboarding/KYC than COIN, (2)
| access to more coins to trade (3) better tooling (4) better
| fees (5) etc. etc. ?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| If you got stock for free because you work for coinbase, does
| it matter much it went down? I mean it's still around $250
| each, that quickly adds up.
|
| > their offers aren't particularly better than <anywhere
| else>
|
| citation needed, I mean 'anywhere' is a big space. I'm seeing
| north of $100K on a quick google, that's a lot more than most
| places pay. Or are you speaking from a privileged, SF-
| blinkered position?
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > If you got stock for free because you work for coinbase,
| does it matter much it went down? I mean it's still around
| $250 each, that quickly adds up.
|
| That's where the "isn't better than other offers" part
| comes in. If you get 40K in stock from Coinbase or 40K in
| stock from Robinhood, and one went up and one didn't...
|
| > citation needed, I mean 'anywhere' is a big space. I'm
| seeing north of $100K on a quick google, that's a lot more
| than most places pay.
|
| I'm speaking as compared to the list of stock tickers I
| listed.
|
| > Or are you speaking from a privileged, SF-blinkered
| position?
|
| If we're at the point where Coinbase can't hire
| "privileged" employees and is having to settle for ones who
| don't have other options, I think that makes my case for
| me.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| Brian Armstrong was on Tyler Cowen and Tyler asked him if bitcoin
| was a zero sum game, in a round about way:
| COWEN: I've seen estimates that about 20 percent of bitcoin has
| been lost, or people don't have their passwords, or it's somehow
| abandoned or whatever. Let's say that 20 percent were found.
| Those people would be better off, right? They'd have more wealth.
| Who is then worse off? ARMSTRONG: Yes, I suppose you
| have dilution, and you have inflation if you're increasing the
| money supply somehow like that. COWEN: Then if we
| ask the general question that the social value of bitcoin --
| bitcoin in general -- again, clearly a benefit to the people who
| bought at low prices. They in essence found bitcoin. But if
| someone else in the system is losing an equal amount, why think
| that the social value of bitcoin is positive?
| ARMSTRONG: Who's losing the equivalent amount in this case, just
| so I understand? COWEN: I don't know exactly who,
| but someone else has less purchasing power, right? Bitcoin isn't
| apples. You can't eat it for lunch. ARMSTRONG: It's
| not clear to me that bitcoin is a zero-sum game.
| COWEN: But what is that? When do I get my apples, so to speak?
| Where do they come from? ARMSTRONG: Well, anybody
| can participate of course. I think, now, about probably 10
| percent of Americans and maybe 60 or 70 million people globally
| have crypto, at least. So it's been growing a lot.
|
| Brian didn't seem to understand the question and it left me a bit
| unimpressed.
|
| https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/brian-armstrong/
| extr wrote:
| Very interesting. Similar theme to a point Tyler made awhile
| ago, that I think he touches on even explicitly in this
| interview, about how if BTC gets to $100K or $200K, you have a
| bunch of billionaires running around that have essentially done
| "nothing" to earn it. Seems like it would just exacerbate
| inequality. Anyone can participate, as long as you're
| reasonably tech-savvy, and have disposable income to invest
| (gamble) with.
| boc wrote:
| It's hard to find a serious economist who doesn't see major
| flaws with bitcoin. It's because bitcoin was designed by
| engineers, not economists.
|
| Bitcoin could only have been created by engineers - it misses a
| few fundamental tests of currency that any practicing economist
| would have "fixed" during the design phase. So we are left with
| bitcoin, which looks silly to most experts but is basically a
| religion to those who only see the technical merits of the
| project.
|
| If we run the experiment all the way out, we end up with a
| ruling class based simply on time and fervor of adoption of a
| random piece of tech that appeared 10 years ago.
|
| If we run it allll the way out we have a bunch of bitcoin
| billionaires constantly fearing for their lives because they
| are essentially walking piggybanks, ripe for kidnapping and
| torturing their wealth away via rubber hose cryptography.
| [deleted]
| motohagiography wrote:
| Not a bitcoin fan, but this question of eating it for lunch or
| backing it with apples misunderstands that the fundamental
| liquidity backstop of bitcoin is _risk._ So long as you can
| take it to a casino (real or notional) and bet it, it has
| value. For it to go to zero, it would mean no two people could
| make a bet where one benefits from the result.
|
| Even random shitcoins have a non-zero value so long as there
| are participants who can use it as a proxy for risk of any
| sort. The the value is a function of the risk the exchange
| represents. If we bet 20 randocoins on tomorrow's high
| temperature in a city, we've created potential value. The
| bitcoin bet is that its value is non-zero, and an infinite
| number of people can trade in and out of positions in that bet
| and create and extract value from it.
|
| The only real downside risk is a bunch of smart contract
| derivatives that hoover up bitcoin, rehypothecate and leverage
| it and give you some higher risk platform token/scrip instead
| that has a much higher likelihood of being worthless when it
| defaults, but with some additional personal security.
|
| Using Cowen's analogy, bitcoin isn't apples, it's the game
| token you use to play the game to win the apples.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| Interesting! But isn't betting is a zero sum game? Betting on
| apples means some lose and some win, but the world is not
| better off as a result, because they cancel out.
|
| Or that is my understanding.
| tomp wrote:
| To be honest, the questions were a bit stupid and/or dishonest.
| It's like asking, "if gold price goes up, who's losing?" I
| guess anybody that didn't invest in gold, but, so what?
| tptee wrote:
| If the mission was to expel all of your black employees...mission
| accomplished I guess
| exolymph wrote:
| "One of the biggest concerns around our stance was that it
| would impact our diversity numbers. Since my post, we've grown
| our headcount about 110%, while our diversity numbers have
| remained the same, or even improved on some metrics."
|
| What that means in terms of black employees precisely, idk. But
| isn't it kinda racist to assume black people are a monolith
| with universally shared opinions? I can assure you that's not
| the case.
| tptee wrote:
| What are their diversity numbers? What are their metrics? Are
| diverse hires paid fairly?
|
| I ask because they have a concrete history of discrimination
| towards black employees!
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/technology/coinbase-
| pay-e...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/technology/coinbase-
| crypt...
| greenie_beans wrote:
| it's so ironic to me that he prides himself over the "no
| politics" policy, yet calls his company "mission-focused". the
| mission is cryptocurrency, which is very political.
| ryan93 wrote:
| Whats political about using coinbase to buy and sell bitcoin?
| greenie_beans wrote:
| crypto is political
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| For you? Or for everyone?
|
| People say everything is political, that doesn't make it
| so.
| [deleted]
| malermeister wrote:
| "No politics" (that don't match mine, that is).
| jiveturkey wrote:
| indeed. akin to "data driven"
| Aunche wrote:
| It's not ironic. It's literally the point of why he's calling
| it "mission-focused" and not "apolitical." If the almost all
| members of the NAACP happened to be pro-crypto, do you it's
| reasonable for it's members to pressure its leadership to
| spread the adoption of crypto?
| greenie_beans wrote:
| you missed my point. i'm arguing that coinbase is in the
| business of pushing their own politics, via cryptocurrency,
| which is very much a political thing at this point. yet,
| their workers can't discuss _other_ politics. it 's very
| ironic and hypocritical.
|
| and yes, i think the members of NAACP would be pushing crypto
| if that's what they felt was a priority for their cause. i
| don't understand your logic?
|
| edit: i believe that being apolitical is just as a political
| stance as being political.
| ctur wrote:
| I wrote this in an email turning down a chance explore
| opportunities at Coinbase.
|
| > To me, diversity and social justice are critically important. I
| have the luxury of being selective in where I put my time and
| energy and it is important those values align with my career. I
| appreciate aspects of being "mission focused" but I think that
| there is a gulf between my personal values and Coinbase's values
| such that I would not be comfortable in the environment.
|
| I can't speak for anyone else but I think I'm not a terrible
| engineer and I definitely ruled them completely out of the realm
| of places I'd be willing to work.
| jdhn wrote:
| Not to be mean, but I'd say that Brian Armstrong took the
| actions he did to weed out people like you from working at
| Coinbase.
| sagichmal wrote:
| "People like [the OP]" are in my experience consistently
| better at what they do than the sort of folks which Coinbase
| is now apparently soliciting.
| jmeister wrote:
| Exactly the opposite in my experience. The top
| competent/productive people I've worked with were too
| obsessed with their craft to even think about politics.
| slownews45 wrote:
| The folks pulling the late nights on projects and
| delivering great results - normally the issue is to get
| them to stop talking about work all the time (happy hour?!)
| - not to get them to start talking about a social justice
| issue around microaggressions or whatever!
| sagichmal wrote:
| I'm not sure why you think people who care about justice
| draw that energy from the same pool that motivates their
| work, as if it's a zero-sum calculus. It isn't. People
| who think about things systemically tend to apply that
| perspective in all of their practices. And that's the
| value.
| Jensson wrote:
| The problem is when people who care about justice
| harasses co-workers because those co-workers doesn't care
| as much about justice. That has a very negative effect on
| those co-workers regardless if this has a negative effect
| on the harasser.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| Considering Coinbase isn't seeing any attrition above normal
| for tech and isn't having issues recruiting, I think nobody
| really cares.
|
| Also, if you're white and claim diversity and social justice to
| be "critically important" then why don't you give up your job
| so that a minority can take it?
| jmeister wrote:
| A counterpoint: I'm actively seeking out "mission-based" or
| "anti-woke" workplaces in AI/ML. I'm not interested in crypto,
| so not Coinbase though.
|
| This pluralism is what makes America great, right? As the
| beloved slogan goes: "It's a free country".
| jamiequint wrote:
| Sounds like their policy of discouraging wokes, who want to use
| their job as a cudgel for their own political views, from
| applying to their company is working.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| This is the outcome he wanted, so it sounds like everybody wins
| here.
| refenestrator wrote:
| Honest question, what do you do at your presumably more
| enlightened workplace instead to pursue your political beliefs?
|
| From what I've seen, these people typically just want to treat
| the company slack like Twitter and persecute political enemies
| while still cashing their paycheck and doing nothing of
| material value for the disadvantaged.
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| Shows that this strategy is working as intended
| brailsafe wrote:
| Startups are still doing this mission thing? When is the lie that
| they're not just awful companies like every other going to stop
| working?
| scop wrote:
| > How could something be so negative in the press, but turn out
| to be incredibly positive with every stakeholder.
|
| The question of our era! Certainly "every" is misapplied in his
| quote, but his core message of overwhelming private positivity in
| light of negative press is worth pondering.
| sagichmal wrote:
| Yes. All of the "private" correspondence he's received, which
| of course he cannot share, has been overwhelmingly positive.
| Indeed.
| rockbruno wrote:
| I actually think this has a pretty obvious answer. The "press"
| consists of the same people rambling on Twitter: woke anxious
| 20 year olds who, instead of going to therapy, insist that
| instead that's who they are and it's the entire world who needs
| to change. At the same time, the people who can see through the
| bullcrap are happy that they can finally do their work.
| tootie wrote:
| This seems like a gross abuse of the phrase "mission focused" to
| mean "operating for profit with total blinders on to the wider
| world". With a very appropriate photo of the 90s Bulls being a
| group of self-serving egomaniacs who put winning above everything
| else. My current employer (a non-profit) uses the term "mission
| focused" to mean "we are serving the public good even when it
| isn't profitable and acknowledging our role in society". I think
| the latter is what younger employees are increasingly embracing
| to some degree. The former is still creating the most successful
| companies because they operate without a conscience.
| krrrh wrote:
| He defined mission-focused in the original memo pretty clearly
| and succinctly.
|
| > What is the scope of our mission?
|
| > Coinbase's mission is to create an open financial system for
| the world. This means we want to use cryptocurrency to bring
| economic freedom to people all over the world. This is
| difficult and important work, and every employee at Coinbase
| signed up because they are excited about this mission.
|
| It's not operating with total blinders on the wider world,
| becoming profitable as a startup often _requires_ having a
| vision of positively changing the world. Armstrong wants people
| who care about the mission quoted above, period. There are
| people who are passionately committed to this, yet have totally
| different opinions on abortion, marginal tax rates, racial
| politics, bail reform. There 's no reason to think you can
| predict any of these for an individual based on adherence to
| the mission statement.
|
| Achieving change on the one thing that matters to everyone also
| requires that you have viewpoint diversity on the things that
| don't, because your current and potential customer base sure
| does. To the extent that mission creep enforces conformity
| across a range of issues, you narrow the range of people who
| would be comfortable working at your company to an increasingly
| small pool, and you limit access to the sort of insights that
| lead to a better product.
|
| The alternative is to have separate pillow companies for
| conservatives and liberals, which is ridiculous.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-08 23:00 UTC)