3 ms·

No he did not. We didn’t even discuss it.

choppaface 5y ago
I don’t think the question was whether you two actually talked but rather if there is any conflict of interest or other incentives that fueled the defense. You’ve had a particularly divisive approach towards people (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-employees-leave-coinbase-over-ceos-pledge-to-be-apolitical/?sh=612aed55a065 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp... ) and so it’s reasonable to assume any of your public statements might not be completely accurate or forthcoming or easy to take at face value. That of course might not be intentional though!
- 1123581321 5y ago
  It looks like the question actually was whether they talked. It was asked two ways in the same comment: - “Did Patrick request that you write this post?” - “Did Patrick message you to ask you to post this?”
- 22c 5y ago
  > Did Patrick message you to ask you to post this? Is a pretty direct question and barmstrong gave a direct answer. It's possible that temp7536 and barmstrong simply had different experiences with Patrick. It seems to me that barmstrong wanted to share their experience.
  - choppaface 5y ago
    barmstrong is the coinbase ceo. he’s not “sharing an experience,” he’s doing PR.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  > You’ve had a particularly divisive approach towards people (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp... ) Unless you have more information than I do, I really don't understand how that is an example of divisiveness. Picking sides is a great way of being divisive. If they picked a side, people would've also left the company because they disagreed with the side that was picked. Which would mean that the company culture will become that side. People who think differently will be discouraged to join the company because they don't want to work for a company with stand points they disagree with. A company like that will possibly end up blind to whatever the 'other side' thinks. That's how you end up with Juicero. I don't think every organization should be apolitical by default. But there really is a point to being apolitical as an organization, especially in the Crypto market, since there are so many different reasons for people supporting Crypto, any political stand point might cause you to lose customers.

I don’t think the question was whether you two actually talked but rather if there is any conflict of interest or other incentives that fueled the defense. You’ve had a particularly divisive approach towards people (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-employees-leave-coinbase-over-ceos-pledge-to-be-apolitical/?sh=612aed55a065 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp... ) and so it’s reasonable to assume any of your public statements might not be completely accurate or forthcoming or easy to take at face value. That of course might not be intentional though!

1123581321 5y ago
It looks like the question actually was whether they talked. It was asked two ways in the same comment: - “Did Patrick request that you write this post?” - “Did Patrick message you to ask you to post this?”
22c 5y ago
> Did Patrick message you to ask you to post this? Is a pretty direct question and barmstrong gave a direct answer. It's possible that temp7536 and barmstrong simply had different experiences with Patrick. It seems to me that barmstrong wanted to share their experience.
- choppaface 5y ago
  barmstrong is the coinbase ceo. he’s not “sharing an experience,” he’s doing PR.
donkeyd 5y ago
> You’ve had a particularly divisive approach towards people (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp... ) Unless you have more information than I do, I really don't understand how that is an example of divisiveness. Picking sides is a great way of being divisive. If they picked a side, people would've also left the company because they disagreed with the side that was picked. Which would mean that the company culture will become that side. People who think differently will be discouraged to join the company because they don't want to work for a company with stand points they disagree with. A company like that will possibly end up blind to whatever the 'other side' thinks. That's how you end up with Juicero. I don't think every organization should be apolitical by default. But there really is a point to being apolitical as an organization, especially in the Crypto market, since there are so many different reasons for people supporting Crypto, any political stand point might cause you to lose customers.