5 ms·

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 Coin

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.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Do the people making the statements you quoted have more context/information, or are they just more vocal. In my experience, there has never been a shortage of people with practically no information communicating very strong opinions online?
  - vmception 6y ago
    It is a mixture of more context, more vocal, as well as people joining the fray with less context, assimilating to the same perspectives.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >"The path to an IPO is to purge Black and Brown people from Coinbase ... this is very unbecoming of a federal contractor" Do normal people actually believe stuff like this???
  - curryst 6y ago
    Normal as in average? No, that leans pretty far left. It's not particularly unusual to see though. My theory is that there is a very loud minority of people online that believe things like that (or are willing to exaggerate to that degree). Extremists abound on the internet.
    - SecretRepub2 6y ago
      Pretty far left seems common in the Bay Area.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    Depends on where you're from. US appears to be quite a bit more embracing of that viewpoint than people from other countries who aren't so well tuned to US societal sensitivities (which can be very difficult to navigate).
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    As if purging was offering a generous severance package to employees who voluntarily quit... As if all Black/Brown people believe that Coinbase's stance here is wrong...
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  Based purely on the headline, it feels like the people who yell about it are the exact Twitter shitstorm party that tries to start a pitchfork mob everywhere, and if you just try to stay away from it, they'll form a mob against you for staying out of it. In other words, exactly the toxic group of people that this is trying to remove from the company.
  - vmception 6y ago
    I think that is pretty clear, but I think taking that approach of excising them is going to shoot themselves in the foot. It should be clear that this isn't "just" trying to be mission focused, that was very eloquently written and timely, but it is failing because it is a reaction to internal issues which wasn't clear to the rest of us. And as such it has stirred a hornets nest that also no longer wants to keep things inside the company. Many of the people it has stirred are also people that have been fighting for more inclusivity and also identify as part of underrepresented groups. People that feel like their voice isn't loud enough because they are so few inside the companies. This doesn't represent everyone in underrepresented groups, only that there is a significant overlap in the goals of inclusivity and people that want the company to be more welcoming by speaking out against inherently political nationalism, which the company doesn't want to do. I'm not offering any solution only observation.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      I think there are two groups: One that generally tries to treat human beings well, and is open to reasonable arguments, and one that attacks everyone who doesn't agree with their specific position. It's the difference between someone who makes a proposal how to improve inclusivity and tries to convince people that this is the right thing to do, and someone who will start attacking people who don't want to implement that proposal. The latter is the more visible one and being targeted by this, and in my opinion rightly so, because that behavior (attacking others) is toxic and helps nobody.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > "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." As a Swede, I... don't even know what they might be misinterpreting here!
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It's rare but still surprisingly common for Americans to mix up Sweden and Switzerland. Switzerland is famous for its policy of neutrality, perhaps that's what they're thinking of? Except I don't recall Switzerland ever abandoning it, let alone deciding it was racist. So I think that person is just terminally confused.
    - vmception 6y ago
      No, Sweden. Sweden apologized recently about their neutrality was not that neutral. They maintained favorable trade conditions with Berlin as well as granted land access for military incursions.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        Er, is this a reference to world war 2? Which was 80 years ago, not 60? And don't you think their "neutrality" might have been slightly biased by other factors than, um, racism?
        vmception 6y ago
        You're reading what you want to read. The comment said it took them 60 years, which means it could have happened 20 years ago. They also never said Sweden's circumstance was racism, the only common denominator is neutrality being harmful. I also have no opinion on that direct quote which is in quotes. Go find and ask that other person, on LinkedIn, why they wrote it in the context they did.
        thu2111 6y ago
- antonvs 6y ago
  > "Being neutral is a position in support of the status quo - it always has been." This is undeniably true.

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.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
Do the people making the statements you quoted have more context/information, or are they just more vocal. In my experience, there has never been a shortage of people with practically no information communicating very strong opinions online?
- vmception 6y ago
  It is a mixture of more context, more vocal, as well as people joining the fray with less context, assimilating to the same perspectives.
itsoktocry 6y ago
>"The path to an IPO is to purge Black and Brown people from Coinbase ... this is very unbecoming of a federal contractor" Do normal people actually believe stuff like this???
- curryst 6y ago
  Normal as in average? No, that leans pretty far left. It's not particularly unusual to see though. My theory is that there is a very loud minority of people online that believe things like that (or are willing to exaggerate to that degree). Extremists abound on the internet.
  - SecretRepub2 6y ago
    Pretty far left seems common in the Bay Area.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  Depends on where you're from. US appears to be quite a bit more embracing of that viewpoint than people from other countries who aren't so well tuned to US societal sensitivities (which can be very difficult to navigate).
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  As if purging was offering a generous severance package to employees who voluntarily quit... As if all Black/Brown people believe that Coinbase's stance here is wrong...
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
Based purely on the headline, it feels like the people who yell about it are the exact Twitter shitstorm party that tries to start a pitchfork mob everywhere, and if you just try to stay away from it, they'll form a mob against you for staying out of it. In other words, exactly the toxic group of people that this is trying to remove from the company.
- vmception 6y ago
  I think that is pretty clear, but I think taking that approach of excising them is going to shoot themselves in the foot. It should be clear that this isn't "just" trying to be mission focused, that was very eloquently written and timely, but it is failing because it is a reaction to internal issues which wasn't clear to the rest of us. And as such it has stirred a hornets nest that also no longer wants to keep things inside the company. Many of the people it has stirred are also people that have been fighting for more inclusivity and also identify as part of underrepresented groups. People that feel like their voice isn't loud enough because they are so few inside the companies. This doesn't represent everyone in underrepresented groups, only that there is a significant overlap in the goals of inclusivity and people that want the company to be more welcoming by speaking out against inherently political nationalism, which the company doesn't want to do. I'm not offering any solution only observation.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    I think there are two groups: One that generally tries to treat human beings well, and is open to reasonable arguments, and one that attacks everyone who doesn't agree with their specific position. It's the difference between someone who makes a proposal how to improve inclusivity and tries to convince people that this is the right thing to do, and someone who will start attacking people who don't want to implement that proposal. The latter is the more visible one and being targeted by this, and in my opinion rightly so, because that behavior (attacking others) is toxic and helps nobody.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> "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." As a Swede, I... don't even know what they might be misinterpreting here!
- thu2111 6y ago
  It's rare but still surprisingly common for Americans to mix up Sweden and Switzerland. Switzerland is famous for its policy of neutrality, perhaps that's what they're thinking of? Except I don't recall Switzerland ever abandoning it, let alone deciding it was racist. So I think that person is just terminally confused.
  - vmception 6y ago
    No, Sweden. Sweden apologized recently about their neutrality was not that neutral. They maintained favorable trade conditions with Berlin as well as granted land access for military incursions.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Er, is this a reference to world war 2? Which was 80 years ago, not 60? And don't you think their "neutrality" might have been slightly biased by other factors than, um, racism?
      - vmception 6y ago
        You're reading what you want to read. The comment said it took them 60 years, which means it could have happened 20 years ago. They also never said Sweden's circumstance was racism, the only common denominator is neutrality being harmful. I also have no opinion on that direct quote which is in quotes. Go find and ask that other person, on LinkedIn, why they wrote it in the context they did.
        thu2111 6y ago
antonvs 6y ago
> "Being neutral is a position in support of the status quo - it always has been." This is undeniably true.