3 ms·

This won’t end well. The moment Coinbase articulates anything remotely related to an underlying set of values or business ethics, the accusations of politicizat

This won’t end well. The moment Coinbase articulates anything remotely related to an underlying set of values or business ethics, the accusations of politicization (and hypocrisy) will come flying. I believe that corporations are not governed or regulated to support activism writ large, but there has to be room for dissent (even if it ends in separation). How else do you arrive at a shared definition of “economic freedom”? Is the next step amorality?

erik_landerholm 6y ago
What do you mean next step? You can process anyone’s money, it good for business. Name one money processing entity that’s ever taken a stand against...anything?
- hackerfromthefu 6y ago
  In the last few years cancel culture and pc overgrowth has locked entire industries out of the major online money processing networks .. Visa, paypal, stripe .. etc
- thelock85 6y ago
  Apologies if I'm missing the mark on your question. If the first step is "apoliticism or we'll help you find the door" then isn't a potential next step "amorality or we'll help you..."? Again not arguing that any CEO should nurture activism (though I personally might like it), but healthy dissent is important for solving hard problems, and not every hard problem is purely logical. If my company's mission is to create an open financial system for the world, how can we possibly do that without holding space for the multitude of values, beliefs, and political opinions across the world about financial systems? Seems one way would be to take an amoral stance on the multitudes and stick to a tightly held definition of what an open financial system means.
  - erik_landerholm 6y ago
    Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. Coinbase is saying it is an amoral middleman. In my mind there is no next step. And if you look at the history of money processors, this is the default and probably the only way they ever operate.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  VISA.
skybrian 6y ago
It’s not about being apolitical. The question is whether they can draw a line between mission-related politics (related to cryptocurrency, employment, or just how to do business) and all other politics. There is no clear line to be drawn, so it’s a judgement call, and it will be debated.
- thelock85 6y ago
  > draw a line between mission-related politics and all other politics Agreed. I wonder if they will take some word smithing to the mission statement. Even with the clarification and interpretation presented in the blog post, "economic freedom" encompasses a lot of "other politics". It is a helluva juggling act to want a diverse, thriving team, and a singular shared definition of economic freedom across that team. More practically, I wonder how it will be debated. Who within the organization has confidence to debate where the line is drawn beyond what the CEO has shared? Is it the board?
  - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
    I always thought it's quite normal for people to work together despite not having all the same ideas and definitions. That those flowery words on a mission statement are not precise or exact, and will never stand up to all situations and expectations. Perhaps it's not really that important, and there's not even much point debating it for the organisation .. people at work could instead get on with the work they are doing and offering value to society through the outcome of their work. Of course they could do various activism in other ways, without inflicting it excessively on their colleagues just because they are earning a living across the hallway from them ..
    - thelock85 6y ago
      Yes, and our current socio-political state has this CEO bringing more precision to the flowery mission statement. > without inflicting it excessively on their colleagues This is the tricky part. In a transition from the old normal to the new normal, I believe it's important to recognize who may have always been excessively afflicted but didn't have the platform. Or conversely, who may have never felt excessively afflicted and had full discretion over their professional platform. It's the eternal theme of monoculture vs. multiculturalism. The Coinbase CEO is acknowledging both sides of the coin, and maintaining focus on one side (pun intended). I don't think that's right or wrong. It is what it is. There is more than enough willing talent to keep the line he has drawn in the sand, but will people look back years from now and question the veracity of the original mission despite evident success (e.g. Facebook making the world more open and connected)?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

erik_landerholm 6y ago

What do you mean next step? You can process anyone’s money, it good for business. Name one money processing entity that’s ever taken a stand against...anything?

hackerfromthefu 6y ago
In the last few years cancel culture and pc overgrowth has locked entire industries out of the major online money processing networks .. Visa, paypal, stripe .. etc
thelock85 6y ago
Apologies if I'm missing the mark on your question. If the first step is "apoliticism or we'll help you find the door" then isn't a potential next step "amorality or we'll help you..."? Again not arguing that any CEO should nurture activism (though I personally might like it), but healthy dissent is important for solving hard problems, and not every hard problem is purely logical. If my company's mission is to create an open financial system for the world, how can we possibly do that without holding space for the multitude of values, beliefs, and political opinions across the world about financial systems? Seems one way would be to take an amoral stance on the multitudes and stick to a tightly held definition of what an open financial system means.
- erik_landerholm 6y ago
  Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. Coinbase is saying it is an amoral middleman. In my mind there is no next step. And if you look at the history of money processors, this is the default and probably the only way they ever operate.
Applejinx 6y ago
VISA.

skybrian 6y ago

It’s not about being apolitical. The question is whether they can draw a line between mission-related politics (related to cryptocurrency, employment, or just how to do business) and all other politics. There is no clear line to be drawn, so it’s a judgement call, and it will be debated.

thelock85 6y ago
> draw a line between mission-related politics and all other politics Agreed. I wonder if they will take some word smithing to the mission statement. Even with the clarification and interpretation presented in the blog post, "economic freedom" encompasses a lot of "other politics". It is a helluva juggling act to want a diverse, thriving team, and a singular shared definition of economic freedom across that team. More practically, I wonder how it will be debated. Who within the organization has confidence to debate where the line is drawn beyond what the CEO has shared? Is it the board?
- hackerfromthefu 6y ago
  I always thought it's quite normal for people to work together despite not having all the same ideas and definitions. That those flowery words on a mission statement are not precise or exact, and will never stand up to all situations and expectations. Perhaps it's not really that important, and there's not even much point debating it for the organisation .. people at work could instead get on with the work they are doing and offering value to society through the outcome of their work. Of course they could do various activism in other ways, without inflicting it excessively on their colleagues just because they are earning a living across the hallway from them ..
  - thelock85 6y ago
    Yes, and our current socio-political state has this CEO bringing more precision to the flowery mission statement. > without inflicting it excessively on their colleagues This is the tricky part. In a transition from the old normal to the new normal, I believe it's important to recognize who may have always been excessively afflicted but didn't have the platform. Or conversely, who may have never felt excessively afflicted and had full discretion over their professional platform. It's the eternal theme of monoculture vs. multiculturalism. The Coinbase CEO is acknowledging both sides of the coin, and maintaining focus on one side (pun intended). I don't think that's right or wrong. It is what it is. There is more than enough willing talent to keep the line he has drawn in the sand, but will people look back years from now and question the veracity of the original mission despite evident success (e.g. Facebook making the world more open and connected)?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]