5 ms·

If Armstrong was the sole CTO, COO, CPO, CLO, designer, marketer, advertiser, programmer, and researcher, then yes, all money should go to him. But Coinbase was

If Armstrong was the sole CTO, COO, CPO, CLO, designer, marketer, advertiser, programmer, and researcher, then yes, all money should go to him. But Coinbase was made what it is by many people, the majority of which have nothing close to wealth Armstrong enjoys. Why shouldn’t those people be given money? I agree there should be some incentive for entrepreneurs and the people who make “the business side” work, but doesn’t the degree of difference between Armstrong and his average employee strike you as unfair?

daenz 4y ago
>Why shouldn’t those people be given money? They were given money: their compensation that they agreed and accepted as being fair payment for their labor.
- uncomputation 4y ago
  Let’s be conservative and say Armstrong has just a net worth of the house he bought: 150,000,000. If the average employee’s salary is 150,000, Armstrong makes 1,000 times more than them. Does this seem fair? Does he deserve higher compensation for his entrepreneurial skills? Absolutely. But 1,000? It’s hard for us to imagine the scale of 1,000 times greater than something but it seems excessive (and remember, this is being extremely conservative). Does he really work 1,000 times harder than the average employee? These aren’t rhetorical questions by the way. I genuinely want to know, what do you think?
  - daenz 4y ago
    You ignored my response to your post completely and re-iterated the exact same point, so I don't think you are listening or actually care to hear what I think, because if you did, you would know that I already answered you.
  - Dma54rhs 4y ago
    Programmers wages in America are for the vast majority of the world obscene as well. It depends where do you draw the line, American programmer is most likely the 1% for the world.
    - uncomputation 4y ago
      Don’t really see the relevance here? America is also more expensive than the majority of the world. I’m not comparing the wealth of impoverished people to the average American programmer. I am comparing the wealth of Coinbase employees to the wealth of the Coinbase CEO, whose company is successful only because of those employees. If the American programmer is global 1%, then Armstrong would be global 0.001% so the inequality isn’t changed.
  - ajhurliman 4y ago
    If it's really that unfair, why don't you just become an entrepreneur?
    - karpierz 4y ago
      If winning the lottery is so great, why don't you just become a lotto winner?
      - daenz 4y ago
        Great analogy actually. The founders own the lottery ticket, but they pay employees cold hard cash despite the fact that the lottery ticket will likely be worthless. When the founder lose the lottery, and lose all of the unpaid hours and resources they personally put into buying the ticket, they don't demand employees reimburse them and share in the losses. But on the rare chance that they win the lottery, we have to have conversations like this about how "unfair" it is that they owned the ticket, despite paying everyone what they agreed to be paid. So the point that the parent was making was "go buy your own ticket," not "go win the lottery."
        anon2020dot00 4y ago
        The parent was making no point but was making an unreasonable argument in line of "No one can criticize, but if you believe that then why don't you make a profit?". Similar to people who say "if crypto is a scam, why don't you short it?" There are various reasons why people choose to or not choose to become an entrepreneur or why people choose to or not to short something. It doesn't mean just because a person doesn't want to be an entrepreneur, then capitalism is perfect. The argument is a strawman where-in the original discussion was about billionaire entrepreneurs and how much is a fair reward to them. We understand the entrepreneur deserve to be rewarded but the original question is up to what extent. Like how in some EU countries, CEO pay is capped.
        ajhurliman 4y ago
        They deserve to be rewarded by what the market will bear. By introducing ceilings on their income you'd be stifling people's will to "buy the lottery ticket". I can't wrap my head around why people think they know better than the market.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    No, I don't expect to get profit share from the company I work at unless it's written in the contract. Are you serious? I don't care if the owners work 0 hours a week. It's their company and if I wasn't happy with my compensation I would look for another job.
sytelus 4y ago
This is the most fundamental tenant of capitalism. The output is perpetually distributed according to initial risk taken, not according to amount of day-to-day work performed. The property of capital is that it keeps growing (more or less) effortlessly. So you just need to capture initial capital and pay employees only returns from capital, not the capital itself. Fun fact: Bill Gates has made vastly more money just sitting around in his "retirement" than working his ass off for 30 years in Microsoft every day.
- wly_cdgr 4y ago
  What risk did he take, gimme a fucking break. Worst possible outcome for him was he has to settle for a $400k job at a FAANG after his startup fails. Boo fuckin hoo Of course he did enough to deserve some fuck you money, but hundreds of millions? Slap yourself, fool, cos you dreaming
  - indecisive_user 4y ago
    The risk was in the opportunity cost. How much was he making in the first ~9 years pre IPO? As you said he could have made a comfortable salary working 40hrs/week at many other companies but likely took a significant pay cut for many years to found a startup. Coinbase was valued at 86B a year ago, so hundreds of millions would have been ~.2% of that valuation.
  - sytelus 4y ago
    You didn't do it because you didn't took risk in crypto.
- samhw 4y ago
  The most fundamental tenet of capitalism. Capitalism's most fundamental tenant, on the other hand, is probably Starbucks.
roflulz 4y ago
as someone who has actually tried to start a company - he deserves it and more
- wly_cdgr 4y ago

daenz 4y ago

>Why shouldn’t those people be given money? They were given money: their compensation that they agreed and accepted as being fair payment for their labor.

uncomputation 4y ago
Let’s be conservative and say Armstrong has just a net worth of the house he bought: 150,000,000. If the average employee’s salary is 150,000, Armstrong makes 1,000 times more than them. Does this seem fair? Does he deserve higher compensation for his entrepreneurial skills? Absolutely. But 1,000? It’s hard for us to imagine the scale of 1,000 times greater than something but it seems excessive (and remember, this is being extremely conservative). Does he really work 1,000 times harder than the average employee? These aren’t rhetorical questions by the way. I genuinely want to know, what do you think?
- daenz 4y ago
  You ignored my response to your post completely and re-iterated the exact same point, so I don't think you are listening or actually care to hear what I think, because if you did, you would know that I already answered you.
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  Programmers wages in America are for the vast majority of the world obscene as well. It depends where do you draw the line, American programmer is most likely the 1% for the world.
  - uncomputation 4y ago
    Don’t really see the relevance here? America is also more expensive than the majority of the world. I’m not comparing the wealth of impoverished people to the average American programmer. I am comparing the wealth of Coinbase employees to the wealth of the Coinbase CEO, whose company is successful only because of those employees. If the American programmer is global 1%, then Armstrong would be global 0.001% so the inequality isn’t changed.
- ajhurliman 4y ago
  If it's really that unfair, why don't you just become an entrepreneur?
  - karpierz 4y ago
    If winning the lottery is so great, why don't you just become a lotto winner?
    - daenz 4y ago
      Great analogy actually. The founders own the lottery ticket, but they pay employees cold hard cash despite the fact that the lottery ticket will likely be worthless. When the founder lose the lottery, and lose all of the unpaid hours and resources they personally put into buying the ticket, they don't demand employees reimburse them and share in the losses. But on the rare chance that they win the lottery, we have to have conversations like this about how "unfair" it is that they owned the ticket, despite paying everyone what they agreed to be paid. So the point that the parent was making was "go buy your own ticket," not "go win the lottery."
      - anon2020dot00 4y ago
        The parent was making no point but was making an unreasonable argument in line of "No one can criticize, but if you believe that then why don't you make a profit?". Similar to people who say "if crypto is a scam, why don't you short it?" There are various reasons why people choose to or not choose to become an entrepreneur or why people choose to or not to short something. It doesn't mean just because a person doesn't want to be an entrepreneur, then capitalism is perfect. The argument is a strawman where-in the original discussion was about billionaire entrepreneurs and how much is a fair reward to them. We understand the entrepreneur deserve to be rewarded but the original question is up to what extent. Like how in some EU countries, CEO pay is capped.
        ajhurliman 4y ago
        They deserve to be rewarded by what the market will bear. By introducing ceilings on their income you'd be stifling people's will to "buy the lottery ticket". I can't wrap my head around why people think they know better than the market.
- Kiro 4y ago
  No, I don't expect to get profit share from the company I work at unless it's written in the contract. Are you serious? I don't care if the owners work 0 hours a week. It's their company and if I wasn't happy with my compensation I would look for another job.

sytelus 4y ago

This is the most fundamental tenant of capitalism. The output is perpetually distributed according to initial risk taken, not according to amount of day-to-day work performed. The property of capital is that it keeps growing (more or less) effortlessly. So you just need to capture initial capital and pay employees only returns from capital, not the capital itself. Fun fact: Bill Gates has made vastly more money just sitting around in his "retirement" than working his ass off for 30 years in Microsoft every day.

wly_cdgr 4y ago
What risk did he take, gimme a fucking break. Worst possible outcome for him was he has to settle for a $400k job at a FAANG after his startup fails. Boo fuckin hoo Of course he did enough to deserve some fuck you money, but hundreds of millions? Slap yourself, fool, cos you dreaming
- indecisive_user 4y ago
  The risk was in the opportunity cost. How much was he making in the first ~9 years pre IPO? As you said he could have made a comfortable salary working 40hrs/week at many other companies but likely took a significant pay cut for many years to found a startup. Coinbase was valued at 86B a year ago, so hundreds of millions would have been ~.2% of that valuation.
- sytelus 4y ago
  You didn't do it because you didn't took risk in crypto.
samhw 4y ago
The most fundamental tenet of capitalism. Capitalism's most fundamental tenant, on the other hand, is probably Starbucks.

roflulz 4y ago

as someone who has actually tried to start a company - he deserves it and more

wly_cdgr 4y ago