22 ms·

I agreed with what Brian Armstrong said in his blog post and thought it was admirable to publicly take that position, but now I have even more respect for his d

I agreed with what Brian Armstrong said in his blog post and thought it was admirable to publicly take that position, but now I have even more respect for his dedication. I don't know if the severance package is good or not, but it seems generous and it gives employees who aren't aligned with the company an easy way out.

dwardu 6y ago
Brian should have said we don't mix politics and activism in our company, if you don't like it, leave. Which should have ended like that. On the other hand, it's a good move because it keeps things neutral. These annoyed employees should just take it and leave.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- electriclove 6y ago
  Isn't this what he said though (just in a more polite tone)?
- theptip 6y ago
  The problem with taking such a hardline position is that there is a significant switching cost borne by the employee when they leave, and so at the margin you'll have employees that don't buy in to the mission statement, don't like your new/restated position, but need the job/dislike job-hunting even more. So now you've created/agitated a population of disgruntled employees; this will tend to cause problems. Paying a generous severance is enough to lift most of these employees over the "activation threshold" and is (in my opinion) the correct good-faith way of managing the situation; it's saying "no hard feelings if you don't agree with this direction, and we respect/value your contributions thus far." Regardless of whether you agree with the object-level mission statement, I think that, having made the decision, this is a good example of strong leadership; it's important that everybody is bought in to the company mission, and you need to proactively filter out folks that aren't. But at the same time, you need to do so with respect; it's not necessarily a black mark for someone to no longer be a fit for the company or role, as both company and individual can change over time. This is the same sort of idea as when you part ways with an exec after a strategy shift (e.g. pivot from B2C to B2B; replace your consumer-facing head of sales with a B2B veteran). It's not necessarily the case that they aren't doing a job, just that they aren't a fit for the role as it now stands.
  - exolymph 6y ago
    Which is presumably why the exit package is being offered, to solve this problem.
  - notSupplied 6y ago
    There could already be a majority agitated, disgruntled employees--those agitated and disgruntled by the political discord at the company caused by the activism.
unishark 6y ago
Seems pretty damn good severance to me. Four to six months of a SF salary? I wonder if the real goal here is just reduce headcount.
- moduspol 6y ago
  I wonder if the real goal is to foist problematic employees onto competitors.
  - jiscariot 6y ago
    I'm not too familiar with SV culture, but wouldn't an employee exit from Coinbase for the next few months also act as a signal to future employers? Since google has already been bitten from both sides with their "bring your entire self to work" culture, you'd think they'd want to avoid ex-Coinbasers. Maybe I'm reading too much in to this.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      Honestly, I wouldn't think so. People can change / learn, too. If you've already ticked off your boss and coworkers at Coinbase with your politics, this might be an excellent time to get some severance, re-evaluate whether or not you should continue to do that in the workplace, and frame your resignation differently when applying elsewhere. Besides, I'd expect the "true believers" to find some way to outright brag to future interviewers they parted ways with Coinbase over moral / ethical objections.
    - SecretRepub2 6y ago
      There's a lot of woke companies out there.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    I would take the payout and go get another high paying job. Easy money. Not much to read about politics in the decision of getting paid for nothing.
  - mrnobody_67 6y ago
kkhire 6y ago
What’s there to admire? This is common sense and he should have set these expectations from the start. why are people discussing politics at work?
- nemo44x 6y ago
  It’s generally a small but vocal group. And I wouldn’t call it politics so much as activism. A sort of religious zeal has made its way into our institutions like schools and universities. Some people have taken to it like a missionary would religion and believe it’s their duty to spread the word everywhere at all times. The Inquisition was no different in this regard. You just have to read what the activism says. It says everything is racist, sexist, etc and that in every situation you must try and identify not if things were problematic but how they were. And then “do better”, etc. so it’s impossible for these people to separate their beliefs from their jobs. It’s far beyond politics and more a religion than anything. It would be as if a very Christian employee made it their goal to point out everything that isn’t within Christian morality and protesting the company to comply with the word of god.
  - monoideism 6y ago
    > It’s far beyond politics and more a religion than anything. I believe this is a result of the fact that Americans have turned away from organized religion in recent years (note: I'm not religious myself). There seems to be something deep inside of most people that requires a shared spiritual experience. Wokism has emerged to fill that need.
    - aaronax 6y ago
      This article really fleshes out what this thread is discussing: https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch
      - nemo44x 6y ago
        I think it has more cult dynamics than a church per-se. Seeing people end friendships and relationships with family members. “Unlearning” things, otherwise known as reprogramming. Seminars (that are expensive) and “required reading”. Obsessive recruitment of new people to initiate. And then of course if you question things you’ll be ostracized and exiled.
UncleDiaz12 6y ago
Seems to be a way to avoid possible future litigation.
koheripbal 6y ago
There is a lot of value in removing political activists from your company, and so it's worth paying them to leave. Aside from the combative toxic environment they generate, they are also often the source of disgruntled rogue employees that will generally behave improperly, misrepresent coworkers, leak documents, raise alarms about operations they don't understand, and generally draw the company into litigation. In a highly sensitive market like crypto, you don't want to gain unnecessary regulatory attention, and activists like this will be the first to testify against the company with their biased interpretation of internal operations. They're just poison. In the best case scenario, they are just a huge distraction - and in the worst they will cost you 10x their salary in legal drama.
- ryanmarsh 6y ago
  True, hyper-political people of any persuasion are generally toxic. Trust and alignment are essential to performance.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stateofnounion 6y ago
  > They're just poison. This. And like another commenter pointed out, it's not unique to one side or the other. Anyone who defines their entire existence in this left/right dichotomy is suffering from media-induced mental illness.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Pepsi and Coke only want you to think about Pepsi and Coke, because it means they only compete against 1 rival, instead of Fanta, Sprite, RC Cola, Faygo, etc.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      I think Coke wouldn't mind us thinking about Sprite, as Pepsi doesn't mind us thinking about Fanta.
vmception 6y ago
My LinkedIn right now is full of professionals writing about how Coinbase is wrong and unsupportable. That is surprising to me. I would like to see more mission focused companies. They can help the societies they are in with some unilateral initiatives like Netflix did with helping capitalize banks in certain communities, without discussing it or changing the focus.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  The guys who’d go on public platform to denounce Coinbase probably intersect with the type of people Coinbase wants to rid itself of. I fully support what Coinbase is doing. It seems very fair to all sides.
  - vmception 6y ago
    It doesn't change my stance on what I would prefer companies do but it seems like a multilayered issue on the tides to pay attention to here and at the very least makes me not want to espouse my own thoughts about "Yeah! mission focused companies!" publicly. Here are quotes from my feed: "The path to an IPO is to purge Black and Brown people from Coinbase ... this is very unbecoming of a federal contractor" "Over a dozen diverse crypto industry leaders [are] calling it out as racist." "Sweden took 60 years to admit its neutrality policy was racist. How long will it take Coinbase to do the same? Being neutral is a position in support of the status quo - it always has been." "Coinbase's CEO's recent statement of neutrality is unacceptable and complicit." An out of context comment unfortunately adding to the gradient of the same context: "IBM's first computer sold to Hitler. Ford converted cars to tanks sold to Hitler. Why???" The people posting are all identifying as black, in San Francisco Bay Area, and using their platform in support of black communities. What's going on is that there is more context than Brian Armstrong's post, there is the context of what actually occurred within Coinbase amongst Coinbase's employees, something I have an incomplete picture of. And I think all of us miss that. I like Brian Armstrong's post - in isolation. People with more context don't like it, and are galvanizing support against this very quickly. That's too bad. I hope Coinbase gets their IPO.
    - 6y ago
C1sc0cat 6y ago
I suspect its only some activists that Mr Armstrong want's rid of.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  I highly doubt that. Unrestrained political activism on either side has been shown to be a lose-lose situation for any large company. The only winning move is not to play (at work).
  - zeckalpha 6y ago
    There’s more than two sides.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  If someone went around the Coinbase office demanding that the company speak out against abortion, I'm pretty sure Armstrong would want to get rid of that guy too.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    No one's disputing that.
    - dropit_sphere 6y ago
      The grandparent comment is disputing just that.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    However if someone went around the office demanding that people self censor any speech deemed "political", that person would be celebrated.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I don't agree. In all the places I've worked, even the most apolitical ones, someone would be viewed quite negatively if they walked into the break room and tried to break up a private political discussion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rdiddly 6y ago
Reminds me of the band Fugazi who used to charge $5 admission to their shows, and if you were causing problems and asked to leave, you would be escorted out and handed an envelope with $5 in it. In other words, anyone not "comfortable with the mission" (i.e. there to cause a ruckus and not for the music) was "offered a separation opportunity" but still treated fairly and with dignity.
divbzero 6y ago
The severance appears respectable to me given the circumstances. It’s on par with many layoff packages and more generous than the ongoing “pay to quit” program from Zappos and Amazon. [1] [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/why-amazon-pays-employees-5000-to-quit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/why-amazon-pays-employees-50... The extended window for exercising options is something I haven’t encountered before. I’d be curious to hear if others have seen it offered elsewhere.
throw_m239339 6y ago
Where do I apply for a join @ Coinbase? This is exactly the kind environment I want to work in. No petty identity politics while I'm supposed to test or deploy some code, I want my colleagues to come to work... to work and nothing else.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  s/join/job of course.

dwardu 6y ago

Brian should have said we don't mix politics and activism in our company, if you don't like it, leave. Which should have ended like that. On the other hand, it's a good move because it keeps things neutral. These annoyed employees should just take it and leave.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
electriclove 6y ago
Isn't this what he said though (just in a more polite tone)?
theptip 6y ago
The problem with taking such a hardline position is that there is a significant switching cost borne by the employee when they leave, and so at the margin you'll have employees that don't buy in to the mission statement, don't like your new/restated position, but need the job/dislike job-hunting even more. So now you've created/agitated a population of disgruntled employees; this will tend to cause problems. Paying a generous severance is enough to lift most of these employees over the "activation threshold" and is (in my opinion) the correct good-faith way of managing the situation; it's saying "no hard feelings if you don't agree with this direction, and we respect/value your contributions thus far." Regardless of whether you agree with the object-level mission statement, I think that, having made the decision, this is a good example of strong leadership; it's important that everybody is bought in to the company mission, and you need to proactively filter out folks that aren't. But at the same time, you need to do so with respect; it's not necessarily a black mark for someone to no longer be a fit for the company or role, as both company and individual can change over time. This is the same sort of idea as when you part ways with an exec after a strategy shift (e.g. pivot from B2C to B2B; replace your consumer-facing head of sales with a B2B veteran). It's not necessarily the case that they aren't doing a job, just that they aren't a fit for the role as it now stands.
- exolymph 6y ago
  Which is presumably why the exit package is being offered, to solve this problem.
- notSupplied 6y ago
  There could already be a majority agitated, disgruntled employees--those agitated and disgruntled by the political discord at the company caused by the activism.

unishark 6y ago

Seems pretty damn good severance to me. Four to six months of a SF salary? I wonder if the real goal here is just reduce headcount.

moduspol 6y ago
I wonder if the real goal is to foist problematic employees onto competitors.
- jiscariot 6y ago
  I'm not too familiar with SV culture, but wouldn't an employee exit from Coinbase for the next few months also act as a signal to future employers? Since google has already been bitten from both sides with their "bring your entire self to work" culture, you'd think they'd want to avoid ex-Coinbasers. Maybe I'm reading too much in to this.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Honestly, I wouldn't think so. People can change / learn, too. If you've already ticked off your boss and coworkers at Coinbase with your politics, this might be an excellent time to get some severance, re-evaluate whether or not you should continue to do that in the workplace, and frame your resignation differently when applying elsewhere. Besides, I'd expect the "true believers" to find some way to outright brag to future interviewers they parted ways with Coinbase over moral / ethical objections.
  - SecretRepub2 6y ago
    There's a lot of woke companies out there.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  I would take the payout and go get another high paying job. Easy money. Not much to read about politics in the decision of getting paid for nothing.
- mrnobody_67 6y ago

kkhire 6y ago

What’s there to admire? This is common sense and he should have set these expectations from the start. why are people discussing politics at work?

nemo44x 6y ago
It’s generally a small but vocal group. And I wouldn’t call it politics so much as activism. A sort of religious zeal has made its way into our institutions like schools and universities. Some people have taken to it like a missionary would religion and believe it’s their duty to spread the word everywhere at all times. The Inquisition was no different in this regard. You just have to read what the activism says. It says everything is racist, sexist, etc and that in every situation you must try and identify not if things were problematic but how they were. And then “do better”, etc. so it’s impossible for these people to separate their beliefs from their jobs. It’s far beyond politics and more a religion than anything. It would be as if a very Christian employee made it their goal to point out everything that isn’t within Christian morality and protesting the company to comply with the word of god.
- monoideism 6y ago
  > It’s far beyond politics and more a religion than anything. I believe this is a result of the fact that Americans have turned away from organized religion in recent years (note: I'm not religious myself). There seems to be something deep inside of most people that requires a shared spiritual experience. Wokism has emerged to fill that need.
  - aaronax 6y ago
    This article really fleshes out what this thread is discussing: https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      I think it has more cult dynamics than a church per-se. Seeing people end friendships and relationships with family members. “Unlearning” things, otherwise known as reprogramming. Seminars (that are expensive) and “required reading”. Obsessive recruitment of new people to initiate. And then of course if you question things you’ll be ostracized and exiled.

UncleDiaz12 6y ago

Seems to be a way to avoid possible future litigation.

koheripbal 6y ago

There is a lot of value in removing political activists from your company, and so it's worth paying them to leave. Aside from the combative toxic environment they generate, they are also often the source of disgruntled rogue employees that will generally behave improperly, misrepresent coworkers, leak documents, raise alarms about operations they don't understand, and generally draw the company into litigation. In a highly sensitive market like crypto, you don't want to gain unnecessary regulatory attention, and activists like this will be the first to testify against the company with their biased interpretation of internal operations. They're just poison. In the best case scenario, they are just a huge distraction - and in the worst they will cost you 10x their salary in legal drama.

ryanmarsh 6y ago
True, hyper-political people of any persuasion are generally toxic. Trust and alignment are essential to performance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stateofnounion 6y ago
> They're just poison. This. And like another commenter pointed out, it's not unique to one side or the other. Anyone who defines their entire existence in this left/right dichotomy is suffering from media-induced mental illness.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Pepsi and Coke only want you to think about Pepsi and Coke, because it means they only compete against 1 rival, instead of Fanta, Sprite, RC Cola, Faygo, etc.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    I think Coke wouldn't mind us thinking about Sprite, as Pepsi doesn't mind us thinking about Fanta.

vmception 6y ago

My LinkedIn right now is full of professionals writing about how Coinbase is wrong and unsupportable. That is surprising to me. I would like to see more mission focused companies. They can help the societies they are in with some unilateral initiatives like Netflix did with helping capitalize banks in certain communities, without discussing it or changing the focus.

flyinglizard 6y ago
The guys who’d go on public platform to denounce Coinbase probably intersect with the type of people Coinbase wants to rid itself of. I fully support what Coinbase is doing. It seems very fair to all sides.
- vmception 6y ago
  It doesn't change my stance on what I would prefer companies do but it seems like a multilayered issue on the tides to pay attention to here and at the very least makes me not want to espouse my own thoughts about "Yeah! mission focused companies!" publicly. Here are quotes from my feed: "The path to an IPO is to purge Black and Brown people from Coinbase ... this is very unbecoming of a federal contractor" "Over a dozen diverse crypto industry leaders [are] calling it out as racist." "Sweden took 60 years to admit its neutrality policy was racist. How long will it take Coinbase to do the same? Being neutral is a position in support of the status quo - it always has been." "Coinbase's CEO's recent statement of neutrality is unacceptable and complicit." An out of context comment unfortunately adding to the gradient of the same context: "IBM's first computer sold to Hitler. Ford converted cars to tanks sold to Hitler. Why???" The people posting are all identifying as black, in San Francisco Bay Area, and using their platform in support of black communities. What's going on is that there is more context than Brian Armstrong's post, there is the context of what actually occurred within Coinbase amongst Coinbase's employees, something I have an incomplete picture of. And I think all of us miss that. I like Brian Armstrong's post - in isolation. People with more context don't like it, and are galvanizing support against this very quickly. That's too bad. I hope Coinbase gets their IPO.
  - 6y ago

C1sc0cat 6y ago

I suspect its only some activists that Mr Armstrong want's rid of.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I highly doubt that. Unrestrained political activism on either side has been shown to be a lose-lose situation for any large company. The only winning move is not to play (at work).
- zeckalpha 6y ago
  There’s more than two sides.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
If someone went around the Coinbase office demanding that the company speak out against abortion, I'm pretty sure Armstrong would want to get rid of that guy too.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  No one's disputing that.
  - dropit_sphere 6y ago
    The grandparent comment is disputing just that.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  However if someone went around the office demanding that people self censor any speech deemed "political", that person would be celebrated.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't agree. In all the places I've worked, even the most apolitical ones, someone would be viewed quite negatively if they walked into the break room and tried to break up a private political discussion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rdiddly 6y ago

Reminds me of the band Fugazi who used to charge $5 admission to their shows, and if you were causing problems and asked to leave, you would be escorted out and handed an envelope with $5 in it. In other words, anyone not "comfortable with the mission" (i.e. there to cause a ruckus and not for the music) was "offered a separation opportunity" but still treated fairly and with dignity.

divbzero 6y ago

The severance appears respectable to me given the circumstances. It’s on par with many layoff packages and more generous than the ongoing “pay to quit” program from Zappos and Amazon. [1] [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/why-amazon-pays-employees-5000-to-quit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/why-amazon-pays-employees-50... The extended window for exercising options is something I haven’t encountered before. I’d be curious to hear if others have seen it offered elsewhere.

throw_m239339 6y ago

Where do I apply for a join @ Coinbase? This is exactly the kind environment I want to work in. No petty identity politics while I'm supposed to test or deploy some code, I want my colleagues to come to work... to work and nothing else.

throw_m239339 6y ago
s/join/job of course.