Coinbase is a mission focused company(blog.coinbase.com)
blog.coinbase.com
Coinbase is a mission focused company
https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-company-af882df8804
21 comments
Completely agree. Where I was working in 2016 in SF, many employees were reading FiveThirtyEight all day in the summer leading into the election and I occasionally mentioned "its clear how this data is not accounting for certain things" - you know like the entire rest of the country that isn't along the coasts. People didn't want to hear it and acted surprised, like really shocked and disheveled, relying on their filter bubble and FiveThirtyEight's one time stellar performance in 2012.
I watched how people acted like the "worst case scenario" would have been an opposition party getting a tie in the electoral college and not the landslide that occurred. For that party's re-election campaign I am seeing the same conjecture, modeling worst case scenarios about a "slim electoral college victory".
So instead I just placed undervalued bets on prediction markets for a nice payday. Peter Thiel essentially did the same thing, on a bigger scale and reaped disproportionate benefits.
People should just focus on the company's mission statement. I am glad more companies are taking a page out of Netflix's old culture document, dissolving the "we are family" bullshit in favor of a championship team aspiration.
I watched how people acted like the "worst case scenario" would have been an opposition party getting a tie in the electoral college and not the landslide that occurred. For that party's re-election campaign I am seeing the same conjecture, modeling worst case scenarios about a "slim electoral college victory".
So instead I just placed undervalued bets on prediction markets for a nice payday. Peter Thiel essentially did the same thing, on a bigger scale and reaped disproportionate benefits.
People should just focus on the company's mission statement. I am glad more companies are taking a page out of Netflix's old culture document, dissolving the "we are family" bullshit in favor of a championship team aspiration.
Weren't 538's pretty much the only predictions that gave Trump a decent chance at winning 2016? IIRC, they were somewhere around 30%.
yeah, I bought Trump on prediction markets between .10 and .30 to ride those up to 1, so sounds about right
I'm with you until the Republican party wedged on breaking core business operations like hiring (foreign STEM PhDs we knew for years) and day-to-day employee concerns like whether our teammates could get married. It just became too disruptive. At some point, it does interfere with mission.
All that was before physically dangerous public health policies. Now not just jobs and employees, but their grandparents too.
All that was before physically dangerous public health policies. Now not just jobs and employees, but their grandparents too.
[deleted]
Pre-2016, businesses took the same positions - serving international markets and employing foreign workers. They were just not considered political at the time.
People always talked about their heterosexual families and brought their cis sexual identities to work. Then others asked for the same allowances.
People always acknowledged white culture at work. Then others asked for the same allowances.
I don’t think business culture changed so much as politics started to question business culture.
People always talked about their heterosexual families and brought their cis sexual identities to work. Then others asked for the same allowances.
People always acknowledged white culture at work. Then others asked for the same allowances.
I don’t think business culture changed so much as politics started to question business culture.
I'm not qualified to talk about business culture in general, but in Silicon Valley specifically there's definitely been a shift beyond just corporate culture. I've personally seen quite a few employees insist that their company should intervene in political controversies unrelated to how the office is run and how workers are treated there.
they don’t have any problem donating to candidates and party funds though https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?...
curious how coinbase would rebut
A quick google search would show that most of the people Coinbase has donated to support cryptocurrency. The only one I can't find info on is Patrick Davis from New Mexico. This is in line with the message of the blog post.
The problem is that those candidates also support other things. If they donated money to these candidates, they are responsible for those other things too.
crypto is inherently political though in the sense that you have to talk about government, central bankers, inflation, fiat currency, etc. when you talk about it.
i don’t know how you separate it from politics when it was literally born out of the failures of government to protect us from the global financial crisis.
i don’t know how you separate it from politics when it was literally born out of the failures of government to protect us from the global financial crisis.
You can do what Coinbase does, and focus on the positive benefits cryptocurrency helps people achieve rather than problems in political governance. It'll be unavoidable to occasionally touch on topics which happen to be political, but there's no reason a cryptocurrency company would have to take sides on how the Federal Reserve should be run or whether the financial crisis bailouts were appropriately administered.
Financial cryptography predates the global financial crisis by about twenty years, and was born out of a desire for private, secure, and censorship-resistant transactions (in which government is not the only attacker).
https://www.chaum.com/publications/Security_Wthout_Identific...
https://www.coindesk.com/the-rise-of-the-cypherpunks
https://www.chaum.com/publications/Security_Wthout_Identific...
https://www.coindesk.com/the-rise-of-the-cypherpunks
I was very active on the cypherpunks in the 90s, and I can tell you from first hand experience and chatting with people like Hal, Nick, and Tim, that a big component of cryptocurrencies was very much the desire of right-wing economics of libertarian thought -- crypto-anarchy. The subject of nullifying the power of governments to tax was a frequent topic.
And I would would not be surprised if you found the management team at Coinbase to be compromised of some Trump supporters buying into a Faustian bargain of using him to rubber stamp libertarian friendly policies.
Quite a lot of SV tech-bros, especially in the investor and fintech community fall into this pattern, e.g. Peter Thiel, Palmer Lucky, etc
And I would would not be surprised if you found the management team at Coinbase to be compromised of some Trump supporters buying into a Faustian bargain of using him to rubber stamp libertarian friendly policies.
Quite a lot of SV tech-bros, especially in the investor and fintech community fall into this pattern, e.g. Peter Thiel, Palmer Lucky, etc
The political element can be cleaned up when the mission is framed as study first. As in, study the options. Study the stakeholders. Study outcomes when implemented and trialed. Study the mechanisms by which outcomes are measured.
When you do this the laser focus on the mission stsys near the surface: You can't address all the political elements by building or lobbying from within your team, but you can say "our study shows that..." and thus create the environment for another group to act upon, while not doing every suggested thing yourself because the dependencies needed will take you off mission. It's coherent with the idea of decentralizing decision making.
When you do this the laser focus on the mission stsys near the surface: You can't address all the political elements by building or lobbying from within your team, but you can say "our study shows that..." and thus create the environment for another group to act upon, while not doing every suggested thing yourself because the dependencies needed will take you off mission. It's coherent with the idea of decentralizing decision making.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>I've found it very odd how freely and openly siding with a political candidate has become the norm since 2016 at the tech firms I've worked in
Have found this to be the trend in general or the trend for supporters of certain parties/ideals only?
Have found this to be the trend in general or the trend for supporters of certain parties/ideals only?
> Have found this to be the trend in general or the trend for supporters of certain parties/ideals only?
oh in my experience, definitely one sided against trump and anyone who voted for him.
oh in my experience, definitely one sided against trump and anyone who voted for him.
The simplest solution to many issues with corporations is to let them focus on what they do best - making money - and not saddle them with tons of additional baggage like
- Making business pay for healthcare
- Making business take political stances
- Making business responsible for caring for the sick / needy / orphans / etc.
Let business make maximum money and distribute it to employees and owners, then let everyone who received money deploy it to their favored interest groups / politicians / activisms / social programs / charities / etc. Much less conflict in regards to business - thinking about them, working for them, differing theories about their role in society, etc. Businesses provide value and earn profit for doing so.
And for things like healthcare, let government handle it, why we let business pay for healthcare in USA is so absurd.
So Coinbase has a good model - stop wasting the whole day getting worked up about political arguments and shaming each other for perceived slights. You can do that after-hours on Twitter and FB as much as you like.
- Making business pay for healthcare
- Making business take political stances
- Making business responsible for caring for the sick / needy / orphans / etc.
Let business make maximum money and distribute it to employees and owners, then let everyone who received money deploy it to their favored interest groups / politicians / activisms / social programs / charities / etc. Much less conflict in regards to business - thinking about them, working for them, differing theories about their role in society, etc. Businesses provide value and earn profit for doing so.
And for things like healthcare, let government handle it, why we let business pay for healthcare in USA is so absurd.
So Coinbase has a good model - stop wasting the whole day getting worked up about political arguments and shaming each other for perceived slights. You can do that after-hours on Twitter and FB as much as you like.
Way too logical. Not enough tax loopholes. The real constituency of the USA government (the top 1% of earners / people above $400k/year) will not agree on much except maybe healthcare. Only because they can’t even figure out what care they get for what price anymore.
The shareholder theory of corporate governance is under attack. It is the dominant theory for decades now, and I agree with it, and I don't want stakeholder capitalism. I want corporations to make money and let non-profits / government deal with social problems. So much easier and prevents 5000 different opinions at 5000 different corporations for how they should spend shareholder money on activisms ABCXYZ. Give the money to shareholders and let each of them decide. Otherwise you further divide society, with each investor having to invest in "democrat" companies or "republican" companies, etc. Totally unnecessary.
The shareholder theory is gone. Management has taken over and run the company for their own benefit, not for shareholders.
Shareholder value creation provides at least some shackles to management empire building. Stakeholder capitalism means they're free to waste company resources on whatever fad they can reap personal PR points on.
Good.
There is a broader philosophical idea being put to work here: your professional life and your personal life should be able to be separated.
That goes both ways: let me "leave" work when I'm done, but also ask employees to "leave" their personal lives when they're at work.
There is a broader philosophical idea being put to work here: your professional life and your personal life should be able to be separated.
That goes both ways: let me "leave" work when I'm done, but also ask employees to "leave" their personal lives when they're at work.
but they won’t let you leave work when you’re done is the problem.
And bringing politics to the office help how?
I wonder what triggered this blog post - sounds like there must have been some recent internal controversies.
But this just sounds like 1) an excuse to fire people and 2) a warning to never talk about politics at work.
But this just sounds like 1) an excuse to fire people and 2) a warning to never talk about politics at work.
The same woke activism as everywhere else.
"many employees were interpreting our mission [of creating an open financial system for the world] in different ways. Some people interpreted the mission more broadly, to include all forms of equality and justice. ... Coinbase has had its own challenges here, including employee walkouts."
Because cryptocurrency has a lot of non-liberal people of various kinds, the culture war could be hitting Coinbase even harder than other companies.
"many employees were interpreting our mission [of creating an open financial system for the world] in different ways. Some people interpreted the mission more broadly, to include all forms of equality and justice. ... Coinbase has had its own challenges here, including employee walkouts."
Because cryptocurrency has a lot of non-liberal people of various kinds, the culture war could be hitting Coinbase even harder than other companies.
cryptocurrency is inherently political. bitcoin was created in part in retaliation against a fiat currency system that continues to be propped up by central bankers
i think it would be hard to talk about crypto without constantly talking about regulators, governments, central banks, etc etc etc
i think it would be hard to talk about crypto without constantly talking about regulators, governments, central banks, etc etc etc
Addressed in the article: "If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here, but we normally wouldn’t engage in policy decisions around healthcare or education for example. ... We don’t engage here when issues are unrelated to our core mission, because we believe impact only comes with focus. We don’t advocate for any particular causes or candidates internally that are unrelated to our mission, because it is a distraction from our mission. Even if we all agree something is a problem, we may not all agree on the solution."
Just because something is political doesn't require you to take a stand on every other political issue.
Just because something is political doesn't require you to take a stand on every other political issue.
Isnt it clear that it s politically libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist? Still, why does work have to mix with political campaigning?
Pure speculation but I guess the usual stuff that happens in every other Silicon Valley IT company today:
Some employee or a group an employees decided they didn't like one of Coinbase's client because of their political affiliation and wanted to kick them out because they think they have a say as to who Coinbase should do business with and who they shouldn't.
If it is really the case then, I'm actually surprised Coinbase management had the balls to put out a statement like that, in a era where activists deem "inaction as complicity".
Some employee or a group an employees decided they didn't like one of Coinbase's client because of their political affiliation and wanted to kick them out because they think they have a say as to who Coinbase should do business with and who they shouldn't.
If it is really the case then, I'm actually surprised Coinbase management had the balls to put out a statement like that, in a era where activists deem "inaction as complicity".
That's the thing about being good at your job in our field though...you essentially do get a say, because we're hard to replace. If you are genuinely good, you can get a new job with a 6 figure income in a matter of days, weeks at most. It will take the company months to replace you, probably 6 at least until the new hire is working even close to your capacity. It wasn't until I started to have to do the hiring that I realized just how hard it was..... finding good tech workers is a long, expensive, time consuming process, and in the end it's still 30% luck whether the hire is going to be both good at the job and a cultural fit.
> because we're hard to replace.
Are we? the fact that a CEO has to remind their employees that they are working in a business and this isn't some college campus makes me think we aren't.
Are we? the fact that a CEO has to remind their employees that they are working in a business and this isn't some college campus makes me think we aren't.
>probably 6 at least until the new hire is working even close to your capacity
If you're focused on the company mission yes. If you're spending your time and energy on other goals, particularly when that involves trying to get other employees to spend their time and energy on other goals, nah the new hire will be beating your capacity on day one just by not being as much of a net negative.
If you're focused on the company mission yes. If you're spending your time and energy on other goals, particularly when that involves trying to get other employees to spend their time and energy on other goals, nah the new hire will be beating your capacity on day one just by not being as much of a net negative.
> in a era where activists deem "inaction as complicity".
My guess is that they realized dealing with the shitstorm once is cheaper (in terms of the damage it does) than dealing with smaller shitstorms constantly.
My guess is that they realized dealing with the shitstorm once is cheaper (in terms of the damage it does) than dealing with smaller shitstorms constantly.
This is just a wild guess, but for awhile it seemed like every US company from Doritos to Bank of America was posting corporate social media in support of activist causes. There is a certain strain of thought in the activist community that failing to be an activist is to be complicit with existing oppression. I even saw some companies get pushback for being late/not being enthusiastic enough in their expressions of support, to the point of resignations under pressure.
It takes courage to make a statement like this in the current political context. I have found the crypto industry in general to be more open-minded than other subsets of tech
It takes courage to make a statement like this in the current political context. I have found the crypto industry in general to be more open-minded than other subsets of tech
Commend Armstrong for making this public. A valuable recruiting tool. Imagine other companies will follow suit.
Some may disagree, but at least that’s clear. For comparison, here is a nonprofit version:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_e...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_e...
I love this!
People that need their company to match unrelated causes to them, quit! Go live as a pauper or maintain your subsidized life making room for people that want a job or want to also focus on the laser guided mission!
People that need their company to match unrelated causes to them, quit! Go live as a pauper or maintain your subsidized life making room for people that want a job or want to also focus on the laser guided mission!
I find it pretty concerning the tack of political activism corporations take on. Today it’s something you believe in, tomorrow it’s not, and it averages over time to what’s good for business.
Trade unions or other examples of worker self management are the way to push these kinds of politics. Not all unions need to be the teamsters run by Jimmy Hoffa, the modern white-collar union would and could hardly represent it.
Trade unions or other examples of worker self management are the way to push these kinds of politics. Not all unions need to be the teamsters run by Jimmy Hoffa, the modern white-collar union would and could hardly represent it.
Wow... this much bullshit makes me really glad I never interviewed for them and recently switched to Gemini... Talk about taking corporate censorship to the next level!
This is a well articulated way to think about leading a company in a time of crisis... when you can assume the crisis doesn’t effect your company.
> But for some employees, working at an activism focused company may be core to what they want, and we want to prompt that conversation with their manager to help them get to a better place. Life is too short to work somewhere that you aren’t excited about, and we’re happy to make that a win-win conversation.
> We won’t:
> Debate causes or political candidates internally when unrelated to our mission
> Expect the company to represent our personal beliefs externally
> Assume negative intent, or not have each others back
> Take on activism outside of our core mission at work
I wish more companies would take this position. I go to work to build great things and work with great people, not to talk about identity or partisan politics.
> We won’t:
> Debate causes or political candidates internally when unrelated to our mission
> Expect the company to represent our personal beliefs externally
> Assume negative intent, or not have each others back
> Take on activism outside of our core mission at work
I wish more companies would take this position. I go to work to build great things and work with great people, not to talk about identity or partisan politics.
I'm sure you and others realize this, but it bears repeating: everything is political. If you want to work and not talk about the politics of your work, or the politics of the general world, that's basically signaling that you you are okay with the status quo.
This is not necessarily a _bad_ thing, but in this world it is impossible to be apolitical. The only thing you can be is okay with the status quo.
This is not necessarily a _bad_ thing, but in this world it is impossible to be apolitical. The only thing you can be is okay with the status quo.
I fundamentally disagree with your position. It's totally reasonable to be unsatisfied with the status quo, while still believing that talking about your politics and/or dissatisfaction at work is ineffective or counterproductive.
I agree that everything is political, but a wise person chooses their battle carefully. You can't fight everything wrong in the world at the same time, people have different priorities, and there's nothing wrong about separating your day job and your political discussion.
In the end, few of us can be Nelson Mandela. We rage against social injustice, but in the end we still expect to be paid and sleep under a roof we own. So, in a sense, all of us are "okay" with the status quo, up to a certain degree. There's no shame in knowing your own limit.
In the end, few of us can be Nelson Mandela. We rage against social injustice, but in the end we still expect to be paid and sleep under a roof we own. So, in a sense, all of us are "okay" with the status quo, up to a certain degree. There's no shame in knowing your own limit.
[deleted]
> everything is political.
Everything is not identity politics or partisan politics. "Everything is political" is the very definition of newspeak and it's sophistic.
Everything is not identity politics or partisan politics. "Everything is political" is the very definition of newspeak and it's sophistic.
Since you seem to have some respect for Orwell's ideas, you might be interested to know that "everything is political" is a view Orwell personally endorsed in his writing[1]:
> In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
Every time we decide to act or not act in the public sphere, it has political implications. That doesn't mean it's specifically partisan or identity politics, but it is nonetheless political. Choosing not to speak up about something is just as much a political decision as choosing to speak up.
[1] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
> In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.
Every time we decide to act or not act in the public sphere, it has political implications. That doesn't mean it's specifically partisan or identity politics, but it is nonetheless political. Choosing not to speak up about something is just as much a political decision as choosing to speak up.
[1] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
I updated my comment with this language, because I agree.
Of course people will come out of the woodwork to talk about how "my very existence is political" or some other nonsense. Ie. exactly the kind of thing I'm glad Coinbase is banning at work.
Of course people will come out of the woodwork to talk about how "my very existence is political" or some other nonsense. Ie. exactly the kind of thing I'm glad Coinbase is banning at work.
I can discuss my favorite types of Italian food with friends without being "okay with the status quo". I don't think this is political at all.
In fact, operating in the status quo has absolutely no bearing on approval of the status quo.
In fact, operating in the status quo has absolutely no bearing on approval of the status quo.
That argument works when people say things like "I don't like to be involved in politics" -- because like it or not, merely being a member of a democratic society is a political act.
However, everyone still has a right to engage with society in the manner that they choose. Expecting everyone to analyze every action for political ramifications is simply unrealistic. On balance I suspect my political views align with the people I work with, but I explicitly prefer not to discuss politics at work.
As a progressive, it's easy to imagine this from the progressive side: corporations could be powerful agents of change with the goal of moving society forward. However, there's certainly a nonzero number of atheist and progressive folks who work for Hobby Lobby. "But they should just work somewhere else!" you say. Why? And what if they can't?
A conservative Christian can work side-by-side with a progressive atheist at a great company and change the world together. That's the power of liberal capitalism.
However, everyone still has a right to engage with society in the manner that they choose. Expecting everyone to analyze every action for political ramifications is simply unrealistic. On balance I suspect my political views align with the people I work with, but I explicitly prefer not to discuss politics at work.
As a progressive, it's easy to imagine this from the progressive side: corporations could be powerful agents of change with the goal of moving society forward. However, there's certainly a nonzero number of atheist and progressive folks who work for Hobby Lobby. "But they should just work somewhere else!" you say. Why? And what if they can't?
A conservative Christian can work side-by-side with a progressive atheist at a great company and change the world together. That's the power of liberal capitalism.
It seems like deciding to promote cryptocurrency isn’t accepting the status quo, it’s choosing a political cause to work on?
This isn’t a cause I’d want to spend any time on, but it is trying to make a change.
This isn’t a cause I’d want to spend any time on, but it is trying to make a change.
[deleted]
Should the line-height on the landing page be 1.0 or 1.2
> I go to work to build great things and work with great people, not to talk about politics.
It's hard for me to imagine any topic of discussion internally at Coinbase that is not political. Often in these situations, defense of a status quo becomes "non-political", while any suggestion that a better method might exist for doing something (especially regarding custody of assets precisely designed to be beyond state control) is "political".
It's hard for me to imagine any topic of discussion internally at Coinbase that is not political. Often in these situations, defense of a status quo becomes "non-political", while any suggestion that a better method might exist for doing something (especially regarding custody of assets precisely designed to be beyond state control) is "political".
Even if everything is political, some topics don't need to be discussed inside the company at all.
So much hypocrisy, so much 'mission'.
Coinbase are pioneers of custodial, KYC-first, users data trade and espionage (IRS scandal) approach to crypto which harms ecosystem deeply, making non-custodial solutions more vulnerable to chain analysis and regulations.
Coinbase is philosophically a bank, not a crypto provider.
And they hired people who put DreadPirateRoperts into jail which say a lot too.
Coinbase are pioneers of custodial, KYC-first, users data trade and espionage (IRS scandal) approach to crypto which harms ecosystem deeply, making non-custodial solutions more vulnerable to chain analysis and regulations.
Coinbase is philosophically a bank, not a crypto provider.
And they hired people who put DreadPirateRoperts into jail which say a lot too.
,,Coinbase’s mission is to create an open financial system for the world.''
I will never forgive Coinbase for pushing so hard for centralizing Bitcoin by increasing the block verification time for nodes. I'm happy though that Bitcoin withstand their attack.
So thanks, but no thanks for this message about building a better world.
I will never forgive Coinbase for pushing so hard for centralizing Bitcoin by increasing the block verification time for nodes. I'm happy though that Bitcoin withstand their attack.
So thanks, but no thanks for this message about building a better world.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned, as long as he got paid for busking.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Long ago, another company chose profit over being forced into making moral assessments.
"Indeed, Black demonstrates with great precision that the godlike owner of the corporation, Thomas Watson, was impervious to the moral dimension of his dealings with Hitler's Germany..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
I have a friend who is a high level Google VP that is very active in advocacy for people less represented at Google and in the world, what I assume people here are referring to as identity politics (I'm VERY interested in hearing if there is a distinction I'm missing). It just occurred to me, maybe he, as a Jewish man, feels like he has seen this kind of thing before, and felt he needed to take a stand.
Mr. Miyagi once said: "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle ... sooner or later you get squish like grape."
"Indeed, Black demonstrates with great precision that the godlike owner of the corporation, Thomas Watson, was impervious to the moral dimension of his dealings with Hitler's Germany..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
I have a friend who is a high level Google VP that is very active in advocacy for people less represented at Google and in the world, what I assume people here are referring to as identity politics (I'm VERY interested in hearing if there is a distinction I'm missing). It just occurred to me, maybe he, as a Jewish man, feels like he has seen this kind of thing before, and felt he needed to take a stand.
Mr. Miyagi once said: "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle ... sooner or later you get squish like grape."
>I have a friend who is a high level Google VP that is very active in advocacy for people less represented at Google
The same Google that was planning on launching in a country with slave camps for Uyghurs Muslims?
To put it bluntly, hiring a few black people does not make up for Project Dragonfly. I guess the VP you're talking about has decided who's where on the diversity chart, according to his approval of Google's behavior.
The same Google that was planning on launching in a country with slave camps for Uyghurs Muslims?
To put it bluntly, hiring a few black people does not make up for Project Dragonfly. I guess the VP you're talking about has decided who's where on the diversity chart, according to his approval of Google's behavior.
I'm open to hearing about this. Link?
Edit: oh, you are saying in China. Isn't that whataboutism? Maybe I'm doing the same thing?
Edit: oh, you are saying in China. Isn't that whataboutism? Maybe I'm doing the same thing?
My point is that diversity and inclusion means not supporting such practices, so the VP is either oblivious/ignorant or knows full well of the double standard -- neither reflect well on him.
I'm really interested in understanding how to differentiate between these two things.
It seems like Google does permit internal debate, and fires people when their views are too damaging for the culture. I really, really doubt a lot of people had strong opinions about going into China, and lost to other opinions. That seems really healthy at least.
Coinbase seems like it is saying: no internal debate permitted on political things, just purely discussed on whether it makes financial sense.
To me, Coinbase seems really lazy.
It seems like Google does permit internal debate, and fires people when their views are too damaging for the culture. I really, really doubt a lot of people had strong opinions about going into China, and lost to other opinions. That seems really healthy at least.
Coinbase seems like it is saying: no internal debate permitted on political things, just purely discussed on whether it makes financial sense.
To me, Coinbase seems really lazy.
I'd rather work for the company that doesn't operate as a political activism machine.
After all, what work is being done when you spend hours a day arguing about policy minutiae with co-workers?
After all, what work is being done when you spend hours a day arguing about policy minutiae with co-workers?
[deleted]
Or to some, now a better place to work.
alexyz12(2)
Not seen this much fluff in a while - Coinbase is definitely a profit focused company.
I exhaled heavily at this part
>We are a for-profit business. When we make profit, we can use that to hire more great people, and build even more.
Not what for profit means at all.
>We are a for-profit business. When we make profit, we can use that to hire more great people, and build even more.
Not what for profit means at all.
Isn't expansion the goal of every for-profit business?
1. No
2. Plenty of non-profits aim to expand
I'm sorry, I don't understand your derision towards the line you quoted.
Only a for profit organisation can siphon off profit out of the organisation and give it to ownership.
Either a for profit organisation or a not for profit organisation can reinvest profit to expand operations. In fact given the inability to do the first item, that's pretty much all not for profits ever choose to do with it. Sure they could maintain level of current service and reduce revenue, but none really choose to. Never seen one with a "no longer taking donations, we're good" page up.
So given those two things, it's nonsensical to say
>We are a for-profit business. When we make profit, we can use that to hire more great people, and build even more.
However it gets even more ridiculous given that neither profit status nor expansion were the core topic of the post. The author didn't need to mention nor try to justify the for profit status of the organisation. So they went out of their way to shoehorn this nonsense line in for no reason.
Either a for profit organisation or a not for profit organisation can reinvest profit to expand operations. In fact given the inability to do the first item, that's pretty much all not for profits ever choose to do with it. Sure they could maintain level of current service and reduce revenue, but none really choose to. Never seen one with a "no longer taking donations, we're good" page up.
So given those two things, it's nonsensical to say
>We are a for-profit business. When we make profit, we can use that to hire more great people, and build even more.
However it gets even more ridiculous given that neither profit status nor expansion were the core topic of the post. The author didn't need to mention nor try to justify the for profit status of the organisation. So they went out of their way to shoehorn this nonsense line in for no reason.
I think I see where you're coming from. I don't think the author was trying justify being a for-profit. I read that line as "We are a business. Businesses exist to make money, not for social advocacy" But in more flowery language.
I believe this is intended to be opposed to "when we make a profit we can start donating to a bunch of causes that we think matter which some people occasionally say.
[deleted]
Coinbase is on a mission to bend over backwards for the tax man, and willing provide all customer KYC user data and blockchain transactions/details to them.
If you want to crypto, if you want privacy don't use Coinbase.
You can always use LocalEthereum to buy ETH anonymously and then transfer to a private wallet
https://decrypt.co/40685/electronic-frontier-foundation-call...
If you want to crypto, if you want privacy don't use Coinbase.
You can always use LocalEthereum to buy ETH anonymously and then transfer to a private wallet
https://decrypt.co/40685/electronic-frontier-foundation-call...
I think this article is a well articulated viewpoint and I hope that more companies move in this direction. There is a reason why for all those years that it was considered a social faux pas to discuss politics and religion in polite company and especially at work, the potential for division, hurt feelings and retaliation can very easily cause deep irreconcilable schisms in even the most talented workforces.
I just hope that this doesn't however transform into something more insidious, a way to muffle very important voices for change with respect to diversity at tech companies, though I have a sinking feeling that it will
You win some. you lose some I guess.