5 ms·

They aren’t. They are making a lot of money which is what the business was made for. The post is actually refreshingly honest that keybase is now abandoned and

They aren’t. They are making a lot of money which is what the business was made for. The post is actually refreshingly honest that keybase is now abandoned and will probably die at some point. The idea that companies were stupid enough to place their internal identity on some random 3rd party is so incredibly stupid that it’s hard to feel too bad for anyone. Congrats Keybase!

formercoder 6y ago
Thank you. Keybase had investors and I’m sure the premium Zoom offered was unbeatable. Zoom can effectively pay infinity with equity. Those investors knew that this was the best way they’d ever have to realize gains. That’s why they invested in the first place.
- gwd 6y ago
  Well, when FB bought WhatsApp, its founders stayed on for a bit to vest his shares then founded Signal with his "screw you" money. Maybe some of Keybase's founders can do the same thing.
  - tass 6y ago
    Founded ‘Signal Foundation‘ with Signal’s creator. Signal was around before FB bought WhatsApp.
AgloeDreams 6y ago
> They are making a lot of money which is what the business was made for. I miss the days when businesses existed not just to serve investors but also their employees and the common good. It's like a 1%-er meta profit model where the actual business is in buying and selling the business and the core business is really just a temporary front that is designed to never make a profit, just create fancy looking charts and eventually bait and switch consumers when it is sold to the highest bidder and the employees all eventually lose their jobs. One day, VC funding will either be illegal or required. considering the flow of money in this exchange, I'm betting on the second.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  > I miss the days when businesses existed not just to serve investors but also their employees and the common good Uh when was this? For-profit businesses have always been created for the primary purpose of making money. Any side effect like employee well being happened to coincide with what maximized profits at the time or due to regulation.
  - rabidrat 6y ago
    Pre-1970 or so. Before Milton Friedman, there was a general sense that companies existed to fulfill some mission, with profit as a means. The CEO of Kellogg commented on this in an interview ca. 1980, that money for a business is like a gasoline for a road trip. You need it to get where you're going, but the point of a road trip is not to accumulate as much gasoline as possible.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Is this a joke? The bulk of the labor movement happened before 1970, and it was not because workers were so well-treated and well-compensated that they had a lot of free time on their hands. I'm a big fan of business and entrepreneurship, but let's be clear here: there is a reason we invented government. There was never a time when we could 100% count on the beneficence of business leaders to advance social goals. Edit to add: I'm not trying to demonize all business leaders here. There are some bad actors, but even business leaders who desire to do well have to succeed in the marketplace--even against bad actors. Unfortunately, doing bad things in business often confers the benefit of lowering costs, which is a competitive advantage. This is a known structural issue with a marketplace economy and why we need more than just business to have a good society.
      - rabidrat 6y ago
        Of course, there have always been bad businesses. The difference between pre-1970 and now, is that we've not only socially legitimized the maximization of profit, we've also all but legally mandated it. Now even "decent" business leaders like the CEO of Costco have to continually answer to their shareholders as to why they're not lowering wages and reducing benefit--and in Costco's case, the shareholders may try to take legal action to force them to lower costs, even though Costco the business is already quite profitable. Due to lack of labor regulation and the mantra that "business are required to maximize shareholder value", Costco's decency is fully dependent on its CEO's (unusual) fortitude to fend off those shareholder demands. When its leadership changes, its ability to care for its employees will likely revert to the mean, which as we see in today's environment is abysmal. So really, it's not that "there are some bad actors", but that "the system strongly encourages businesses to install these so-called bad actors as their leaders". I agree with you, that we need strong government labor regulations to counter this mentality, but this mentality is why these regulations have deteriorated over the past 50 years.
bigbob2 6y ago
Unless I imagined it, they previously said publicly that they were unlikely to pursue a sell like this because they had succeeded at previous companies and cared more about the impact this product could make than the profit they could make from selling it. I based my decision to agree to the terms of Keybase around this statement which I can conveniently no longer find. I suspect it was in one of their airdrop announcements, and conveniently those links don't work in the Wayback Machine.
- windthrown 6y ago
  You are referring to this Github Issue: https://github.com/keybase/keybase-issues/issues/788 https://github.com/keybase/keybase-issues/issues/788 "Yes, we sold our previous 2 businesses. But I want to point out that (1) neither of those sales ever hurt (and arguably both sales greatly helped) our users, (2) Keybase deserves special consideration which we are aware of, and (3) both Max and I are happy in a world where we never try to sell a company again, and only build things we like." I feel silly for falling for it too. Even very wealthy people enjoy extra money.

formercoder 6y ago

Thank you. Keybase had investors and I’m sure the premium Zoom offered was unbeatable. Zoom can effectively pay infinity with equity. Those investors knew that this was the best way they’d ever have to realize gains. That’s why they invested in the first place.

gwd 6y ago
Well, when FB bought WhatsApp, its founders stayed on for a bit to vest his shares then founded Signal with his "screw you" money. Maybe some of Keybase's founders can do the same thing.
- tass 6y ago
  Founded ‘Signal Foundation‘ with Signal’s creator. Signal was around before FB bought WhatsApp.

AgloeDreams 6y ago

> They are making a lot of money which is what the business was made for. I miss the days when businesses existed not just to serve investors but also their employees and the common good. It's like a 1%-er meta profit model where the actual business is in buying and selling the business and the core business is really just a temporary front that is designed to never make a profit, just create fancy looking charts and eventually bait and switch consumers when it is sold to the highest bidder and the employees all eventually lose their jobs. One day, VC funding will either be illegal or required. considering the flow of money in this exchange, I'm betting on the second.

ativzzz 6y ago
> I miss the days when businesses existed not just to serve investors but also their employees and the common good Uh when was this? For-profit businesses have always been created for the primary purpose of making money. Any side effect like employee well being happened to coincide with what maximized profits at the time or due to regulation.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  Pre-1970 or so. Before Milton Friedman, there was a general sense that companies existed to fulfill some mission, with profit as a means. The CEO of Kellogg commented on this in an interview ca. 1980, that money for a business is like a gasoline for a road trip. You need it to get where you're going, but the point of a road trip is not to accumulate as much gasoline as possible.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Is this a joke? The bulk of the labor movement happened before 1970, and it was not because workers were so well-treated and well-compensated that they had a lot of free time on their hands. I'm a big fan of business and entrepreneurship, but let's be clear here: there is a reason we invented government. There was never a time when we could 100% count on the beneficence of business leaders to advance social goals. Edit to add: I'm not trying to demonize all business leaders here. There are some bad actors, but even business leaders who desire to do well have to succeed in the marketplace--even against bad actors. Unfortunately, doing bad things in business often confers the benefit of lowering costs, which is a competitive advantage. This is a known structural issue with a marketplace economy and why we need more than just business to have a good society.
    - rabidrat 6y ago
      Of course, there have always been bad businesses. The difference between pre-1970 and now, is that we've not only socially legitimized the maximization of profit, we've also all but legally mandated it. Now even "decent" business leaders like the CEO of Costco have to continually answer to their shareholders as to why they're not lowering wages and reducing benefit--and in Costco's case, the shareholders may try to take legal action to force them to lower costs, even though Costco the business is already quite profitable. Due to lack of labor regulation and the mantra that "business are required to maximize shareholder value", Costco's decency is fully dependent on its CEO's (unusual) fortitude to fend off those shareholder demands. When its leadership changes, its ability to care for its employees will likely revert to the mean, which as we see in today's environment is abysmal. So really, it's not that "there are some bad actors", but that "the system strongly encourages businesses to install these so-called bad actors as their leaders". I agree with you, that we need strong government labor regulations to counter this mentality, but this mentality is why these regulations have deteriorated over the past 50 years.

bigbob2 6y ago

Unless I imagined it, they previously said publicly that they were unlikely to pursue a sell like this because they had succeeded at previous companies and cared more about the impact this product could make than the profit they could make from selling it. I based my decision to agree to the terms of Keybase around this statement which I can conveniently no longer find. I suspect it was in one of their airdrop announcements, and conveniently those links don't work in the Wayback Machine.

windthrown 6y ago
You are referring to this Github Issue: https://github.com/keybase/keybase-issues/issues/788 https://github.com/keybase/keybase-issues/issues/788 "Yes, we sold our previous 2 businesses. But I want to point out that (1) neither of those sales ever hurt (and arguably both sales greatly helped) our users, (2) Keybase deserves special consideration which we are aware of, and (3) both Max and I are happy in a world where we never try to sell a company again, and only build things we like." I feel silly for falling for it too. Even very wealthy people enjoy extra money.