5 ms·

Only for new employees? Is this a backhanded way to try to push early employees out? Why not roll this out for all employees at once instead of generating manag

Only for new employees? Is this a backhanded way to try to push early employees out? Why not roll this out for all employees at once instead of generating management-induced divisions?

frisco 11y ago
SEC rules make retroactively changing this complicated; it's not Coinbase's fault.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Which rules in particular?
harryh 11y ago
Because management can't unilaterally rewrite old contracts. Note that they say "Coinbase is considering additional options to provide similar benefits to existing employees."
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Yes, "considering". That is management fluff. Contracts can't be unilaterally rewritten, but new contracts which bridge to parity with current policies are easily achievable. Lazy management is nothing new or surprising. This just feels like a premature management-product rollout to me. Why not finish considering first, decide to give everyone the same benefits, and then present the unified plan, instead of attempting a Python-like fork of your company with vague promises of possibly building a "2to3" automated upgrader.
  - dang 11y ago
    You don't have nearly enough information to justify being so dismissive and so uncharitable. Dismissal for the sake of dismissal is something we need less of here. This comment is an example of how HN threads could greatly improve by practicing the Principle of Charity, i.e. when unsure, prefer the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Sorry, how am I being dismissive and uncharitable? Where am I wrong?
      - dang 11y ago
        You called them lazy and their statements fluff, and implied that they don't care about their existing employees, when they've just done something positive and you have no specific information about it. A more charitable interpretation is easy: since they've just done something good for new employees, there may be be a constraint that makes it not as easy to do for everyone. I see no reason, other than what Max Scheler called the "compulsion to detract", to assume they don't care about their existing employees—it would be incongruent with what they're announcing, plus dumb. It's fine to raise a question, but the willful sourness that wants to tear down a positive thing and turn it into a negative one is something we need less of in HN comments. This is a particularly good thread not to do that in, because the OP is a datapoint in a significant emerging trend about employee compensation. It deserves a serious, undistorted discussion.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        It's not dismissal for the sake of dismissal. It's not even dismissal. It's pointing out incongruities in the corporate speech. There was enough specific information in this post by the CEO of Coinbase to at least speculate and seriously consider my scenario. I was wrong about the possibility of it being a way to push early employees out. It's rather the opposite (duh! that is ostensibly why these ideas are being experimented with); Coinbase may decide that it wants to keep its early employees locked in. If these actions are being taken in support of employees, why not take a comprehensive approach that solves the entire problem? Or at least actually promise that the entire solution will follow shortly instead of saying it is only being considered. Anyway, I find the desire to reduce perceived negativity as misguided. The risk of an amplifying echochamber is real. Rather, it seems we should address root causes rather than superficial perceptions.
- x0x0 11y ago
  What is stopping management from asking employees' permission to rewrite their contracts in this way? If the employees say sure! (why would you decline?) then is there a problem?
  - slapshot 11y ago
    It may require regranting a new strike price. I have no idea what their cap table looks like, but assume old employees have options with a strike price of $0.10 and new employees are being given a strike of $1.00 (each based on the 409A valuation of the company at the time of grant). It may not be possible to change the old grants without updating the strike price or causing serious tax issues for current employees (to remain compliant as ISOs, the strike must be >= the 409A as of the grant date... failing to do that led to the stock options backdating issues of the 2000s).

Only for new employees? Is this a backhanded way to try to push early employees out? Why not roll this out for all employees at once instead of generating management-induced divisions?

frisco 11y ago

SEC rules make retroactively changing this complicated; it's not Coinbase's fault.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Which rules in particular?

harryh 11y ago

Because management can't unilaterally rewrite old contracts. Note that they say "Coinbase is considering additional options to provide similar benefits to existing employees."

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Yes, "considering". That is management fluff. Contracts can't be unilaterally rewritten, but new contracts which bridge to parity with current policies are easily achievable. Lazy management is nothing new or surprising. This just feels like a premature management-product rollout to me. Why not finish considering first, decide to give everyone the same benefits, and then present the unified plan, instead of attempting a Python-like fork of your company with vague promises of possibly building a "2to3" automated upgrader.
- dang 11y ago
  You don't have nearly enough information to justify being so dismissive and so uncharitable. Dismissal for the sake of dismissal is something we need less of here. This comment is an example of how HN threads could greatly improve by practicing the Principle of Charity, i.e. when unsure, prefer the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Sorry, how am I being dismissive and uncharitable? Where am I wrong?
    - dang 11y ago
      You called them lazy and their statements fluff, and implied that they don't care about their existing employees, when they've just done something positive and you have no specific information about it. A more charitable interpretation is easy: since they've just done something good for new employees, there may be be a constraint that makes it not as easy to do for everyone. I see no reason, other than what Max Scheler called the "compulsion to detract", to assume they don't care about their existing employees—it would be incongruent with what they're announcing, plus dumb. It's fine to raise a question, but the willful sourness that wants to tear down a positive thing and turn it into a negative one is something we need less of in HN comments. This is a particularly good thread not to do that in, because the OP is a datapoint in a significant emerging trend about employee compensation. It deserves a serious, undistorted discussion.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        It's not dismissal for the sake of dismissal. It's not even dismissal. It's pointing out incongruities in the corporate speech. There was enough specific information in this post by the CEO of Coinbase to at least speculate and seriously consider my scenario. I was wrong about the possibility of it being a way to push early employees out. It's rather the opposite (duh! that is ostensibly why these ideas are being experimented with); Coinbase may decide that it wants to keep its early employees locked in. If these actions are being taken in support of employees, why not take a comprehensive approach that solves the entire problem? Or at least actually promise that the entire solution will follow shortly instead of saying it is only being considered. Anyway, I find the desire to reduce perceived negativity as misguided. The risk of an amplifying echochamber is real. Rather, it seems we should address root causes rather than superficial perceptions.
x0x0 11y ago
What is stopping management from asking employees' permission to rewrite their contracts in this way? If the employees say sure! (why would you decline?) then is there a problem?
- slapshot 11y ago
  It may require regranting a new strike price. I have no idea what their cap table looks like, but assume old employees have options with a strike price of $0.10 and new employees are being given a strike of $1.00 (each based on the 409A valuation of the company at the time of grant). It may not be possible to change the old grants without updating the strike price or causing serious tax issues for current employees (to remain compliant as ISOs, the strike must be >= the 409A as of the grant date... failing to do that led to the stock options backdating issues of the 2000s).