4 ms·

A few comments have asserted that if an existing company chooses to be apolitical, that may itself be a political act. This sounds clever, but it's not correct.

A few comments have asserted that if an existing company chooses to be apolitical, that may itself be a political act. This sounds clever, but it's not correct. At the highest level, a company is a group of people who get together to 1) set an impactful goal, and then 2) work very hard to achieve it. The first part — the setting of the goal — is the political act. Disagreements at this level are good, and broadly healthy. But the second part — the achieving of the goal — is purely a practical act. Here, your guiding principle is to take those actions, and only those actions, which you believe will give you the highest chance of achieving your goal. Politicizing a company contradicts this principle: to the extent that you make the act of achievement more political, you are also making it less practical. To the extent that you allocate more budget, focus, and optimization power to X, you are also taking it away from Y. If you make the act of achievement less practical, someone else may beat you to your goal. Your company will be less impactful than it could have been, and may even die as a result. What Brian is saying here is: we set our goal in 2012 when we started Coinbase. We are now engaged in the practical act of achieving it. If you have a goal that's different from the one we set, no problem. Here is some money: you may use it, if you choose, to find an organization whose goals you support.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
So since global warming is more or less a political statement these days, would advocating for climate change mitigating philosophy being built into the company's DNA be political to you and therefore not allowed? Say it's a company that makes widgets that are completely orthogonal to climate change.
- edouard-harris 6y ago
  This is a great question. As posed I'd say the answer is yes, though I'd dispute the characterization of "not allowed". All I'm saying is that: 1) There exists a zero-point of politicization for this widget company; 2) In this scenario that zero-point corresponds to the decision, "do not bake climate mitigation into company's DNA"; and 3) That decision is one necessary component of the policy that maximizes the company's chance of hitting its goal. I'm not saying anything prescriptive at all — just highlighting that tradeoffs that are being made, whether or not one is intentional in making them.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  Yes, I would say so. eg many companies have rules against internal dating, not because they are against dating, but the possibility of problem it could cause. You can ban discussion on climate change, just because of the bitterness it could cause, not because you are taking a stand in climate change.
yourcousinbilly 6y ago
Political vs apolitical is just semantics. Will companies deciding not to be socially active have a political impact? Yes. Does not engaging in political activities support the status quo? Yes. Is a particular political group more affected by a ban on activism? Yes. And I agree focus on their goal is a great, abstract guiding principle for a company. But the better question is does a socially active company have a more positive impact on the world? Brian believes social activism has "the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division." That might be true, but in many cases, I doubt the cost of employee annoyance and loss of focus is more than the benefit of enacting minor policy changes and fund diversion that could positively impact millions.
- edouard-harris 6y ago
  I disagree that political vs apolitical is purely semantics. Given an initial goal, there exists a policy to accomplish it that is truly apolitical. But I do broadly agree with your points on the status quo and dispersion of effect across political groups. > But the better question is does a socially active company have a more positive impact on the world? Your total impact tends to be greatest when all your effort is concentrated on a small surface area. An organization that optimizes for two things almost always has less total impact than it would if it optimized for either one alone. To maximize impact, you'd be better served starting a company that's 100% focused on solving the problem you wanted to solve in the first place. > I doubt the cost of employee annoyance and loss of focus is more than the benefit of enacting minor policy and fund diversion that could positively impact millions. Generally if you want to impact millions in a real and lasting way, it will cost you more than some minor annoyances and fund diversions — even at a company as big and successful as Coinbase. The tradeoffs here are real, and I strongly suspect Brian is speaking empirically when he talks about destruction of value.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

So since global warming is more or less a political statement these days, would advocating for climate change mitigating philosophy being built into the company's DNA be political to you and therefore not allowed? Say it's a company that makes widgets that are completely orthogonal to climate change.

edouard-harris 6y ago
This is a great question. As posed I'd say the answer is yes, though I'd dispute the characterization of "not allowed". All I'm saying is that: 1) There exists a zero-point of politicization for this widget company; 2) In this scenario that zero-point corresponds to the decision, "do not bake climate mitigation into company's DNA"; and 3) That decision is one necessary component of the policy that maximizes the company's chance of hitting its goal. I'm not saying anything prescriptive at all — just highlighting that tradeoffs that are being made, whether or not one is intentional in making them.
YetAnotherNick 6y ago
Yes, I would say so. eg many companies have rules against internal dating, not because they are against dating, but the possibility of problem it could cause. You can ban discussion on climate change, just because of the bitterness it could cause, not because you are taking a stand in climate change.

yourcousinbilly 6y ago

Political vs apolitical is just semantics. Will companies deciding not to be socially active have a political impact? Yes. Does not engaging in political activities support the status quo? Yes. Is a particular political group more affected by a ban on activism? Yes. And I agree focus on their goal is a great, abstract guiding principle for a company. But the better question is does a socially active company have a more positive impact on the world? Brian believes social activism has "the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division." That might be true, but in many cases, I doubt the cost of employee annoyance and loss of focus is more than the benefit of enacting minor policy changes and fund diversion that could positively impact millions.

edouard-harris 6y ago
I disagree that political vs apolitical is purely semantics. Given an initial goal, there exists a policy to accomplish it that is truly apolitical. But I do broadly agree with your points on the status quo and dispersion of effect across political groups. > But the better question is does a socially active company have a more positive impact on the world? Your total impact tends to be greatest when all your effort is concentrated on a small surface area. An organization that optimizes for two things almost always has less total impact than it would if it optimized for either one alone. To maximize impact, you'd be better served starting a company that's 100% focused on solving the problem you wanted to solve in the first place. > I doubt the cost of employee annoyance and loss of focus is more than the benefit of enacting minor policy and fund diversion that could positively impact millions. Generally if you want to impact millions in a real and lasting way, it will cost you more than some minor annoyances and fund diversions — even at a company as big and successful as Coinbase. The tradeoffs here are real, and I strongly suspect Brian is speaking empirically when he talks about destruction of value.