3 ms·

Devil's advocate: why was this chief product officer granted $100m in stock then?

robocat 4y ago
Most comments here are completely missing the point, because they are looking at whether he deserves the money. One primary goal in a capitalist society is to maximise your own earnings, at whatever level you are playing the game. Most people seem to play this game to some extent (almost certainly if you are involved with a software startup). Most people seem to get very annoyed when someone plays it better than they do. Most natural born Americans are also blind to the fact that they get a massive head start at the capitalism game just from the luck of being born in the USA, which gives a huge number of handicap advantages. Surojit Chatterjee mentions his background in the blogpost he wrote when he gained the position at Coinbase: “Growing up in India in a poor middle class household”[1]. That cuts out the usual baloney excuse of being born into wealth. It is just as unfair that the median person in the USA gets to spend $65/day (@2017) while the median person in Mexico gets to spend $10/day[2] ($100M$ is a difference in order, not a difference in kind). I met people in Vietnam working for $50 per month, when a developer in the USA could easily be on $5000 per month, a 100x difference. 33M$ per year is 100x a Google developer at $300k, so we can find examples where the differences are proportional. We can question whether the rules of the game of capitalism are sensible for society, but there is not much to be gained by saying “not fair” when somebody plays the game extremely well. He was employed as Chief Product Officer in February 2020, and the Coinbase IPO on April 14 2020. A capitalist question is: did the VCs receive more than $100M by employing him? IPO valued Coinbase at $99.6bn, so if he managed to increase the IPO price by somewhat more than 0.1%, then the VCs would be in the money, which is all a good wee capitalist really cares about. I would guess him doing his actual job would make zero difference to the IPO (one month is not enough time to develop the product significantly). It would be interesting to know what they were negotiating: the financial incentives they gave him were more “pump-and-dump” rather than work hard to build product. Pump-and-dump may have been aligned with the VC objectives of getting a wildly good IPO (depending on details of non-trading periods etcetera). [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatterjee https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatte... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t...
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > "Most people seem to play this game to some extent" I'm getting 39% and 55% figures for job-offer negotiations. While that's not the only way people try to maximize earnings, if people leave this on the table it's less likely they're picking something else up off the table. 1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/only-39-percent-of-workers-negotiated-their-salary-at-their-last-job-offer.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/only-39-percent-of-workers-n... 2) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-55-percent-of-workers-negotiated-pay-with-last-job-offer-300792725.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-55-percent-o... WRT what else you wrote: Extractive capitalism is one of the reasons for the purchasing power differentials (as well as what's available to purchase) around the world. People can be angry at this sort of thing while still trying to build an adequate lifestyle. And monetary compensation doesn't cover everything, even in a hypercapitalist society. I've noticed that the most famous people who started out poor tend to be famous for becoming rich. Not all of them, but most of them. Whereas those who were born relatively wealthy tend to become famous for a lot of things.
robocat 4y ago
Most comments here are completely missing the point, because they are looking at whether he deserves the money, and it seems “unfair”. Most of the comments here appear just envious to me. I imagine the majority of us would take a $100M lotto winning and keep it, which is a very similar metaphor from an economic and societal inequality outcome. It is similarly “unfair” that the median person in the USA gets to spend $65/day (@2017) while the median person in Mexico gets to spend $10/day[2] ($100M$ is a difference in order, not a difference in kind). I met people in Vietnam working for $50 per month, when a developer in the USA could easily be on $5000 per month, a 100x difference. (100M$/3) per year is 100x a Google developer at $300k, so we can find examples where the differences are proportional. One primary goal in a capitalist society is to maximise your own earnings, at whatever level you are playing the game of capitalism. Most people seem to play this game to some extent (almost certainly if you are involved with a software startup). Most people seem to get very annoyed when someone plays capitalism far better than they do. Most natural born Americans are also conveniently blind to the fact that virtually all Americans get a massive head start at the capitalism game just from the luck of being born in the USA, which gives a huge number of handicap advantages to citizens brought up there. A good capitalist question is: did the VCs receive more than $100M by employing him? (edit: $600M?) IPO valued Coinbase at $99.6bn, so if he managed to increase the IPO price by somewhat more than 0.1%, then the VCs would be in the money, which is all that good wee venture capitalists should really care about. (Edit: ~0.6% because VCs gave up approximately that much worth of shares at IPO? I would guess the options were not worth $600M: I strongly suspect people making up numbers based on share price and ignoring exercise dates). He was employed as Chief Product Officer in February 2020, and the Coinbase IPO on April 14 2020. I would guess him doing his actual job would make negligible difference to the IPO (one month is not enough time to develop the product significantly). It would be interesting to know what they were negotiating, given that the IPO process must have been in finalisation stages. The financial incentives they gave him were more pump-and-dump rather than work-hard-to-build-a-product. Pump-and-dump may have been very aligned with the VC objectives of getting a wildly valuable IPO (although it depends on details of non-trading periods, exercise dates, and structure etcetera). Surojit Chatterjee mentions his background in the blogpost he wrote when he gained the position at Coinbase: “Growing up in India in a poor middle class household”[1]. That cuts out the usual baloney excuse of being born into wealth, and also points out he had the extra serious handicap of not being born into a wealthy country. Nothing I have written above should be surprising, yet so many of the comments here seem to ignore the facts. I strongly believe we can and should question whether the rules of the game of capitalism are sensible for society. However I also think there is little to be gained by saying “unfair” when somebody plays the extremely well (certainly wildly better than I) given the hand they were dealt, and the rules (written and unwritten) as they are. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatterjee https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatte... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t...

Most comments here are completely missing the point, because they are looking at whether he deserves the money. One primary goal in a capitalist society is to maximise your own earnings, at whatever level you are playing the game. Most people seem to play this game to some extent (almost certainly if you are involved with a software startup). Most people seem to get very annoyed when someone plays it better than they do. Most natural born Americans are also blind to the fact that they get a massive head start at the capitalism game just from the luck of being born in the USA, which gives a huge number of handicap advantages. Surojit Chatterjee mentions his background in the blogpost he wrote when he gained the position at Coinbase: “Growing up in India in a poor middle class household”[1]. That cuts out the usual baloney excuse of being born into wealth. It is just as unfair that the median person in the USA gets to spend $65/day (@2017) while the median person in Mexico gets to spend $10/day[2] ($100M$ is a difference in order, not a difference in kind). I met people in Vietnam working for $50 per month, when a developer in the USA could easily be on $5000 per month, a 100x difference. 33M$ per year is 100x a Google developer at $300k, so we can find examples where the differences are proportional. We can question whether the rules of the game of capitalism are sensible for society, but there is not much to be gained by saying “not fair” when somebody plays the game extremely well. He was employed as Chief Product Officer in February 2020, and the Coinbase IPO on April 14 2020. A capitalist question is: did the VCs receive more than $100M by employing him? IPO valued Coinbase at $99.6bn, so if he managed to increase the IPO price by somewhat more than 0.1%, then the VCs would be in the money, which is all a good wee capitalist really cares about. I would guess him doing his actual job would make zero difference to the IPO (one month is not enough time to develop the product significantly). It would be interesting to know what they were negotiating: the financial incentives they gave him were more “pump-and-dump” rather than work hard to build product. Pump-and-dump may have been aligned with the VC objectives of getting a wildly good IPO (depending on details of non-trading periods etcetera). [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatterjee https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatte... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t...

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> "Most people seem to play this game to some extent" I'm getting 39% and 55% figures for job-offer negotiations. While that's not the only way people try to maximize earnings, if people leave this on the table it's less likely they're picking something else up off the table. 1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/only-39-percent-of-workers-negotiated-their-salary-at-their-last-job-offer.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/only-39-percent-of-workers-n... 2) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-55-percent-of-workers-negotiated-pay-with-last-job-offer-300792725.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-55-percent-o... WRT what else you wrote: Extractive capitalism is one of the reasons for the purchasing power differentials (as well as what's available to purchase) around the world. People can be angry at this sort of thing while still trying to build an adequate lifestyle. And monetary compensation doesn't cover everything, even in a hypercapitalist society. I've noticed that the most famous people who started out poor tend to be famous for becoming rich. Not all of them, but most of them. Whereas those who were born relatively wealthy tend to become famous for a lot of things.

robocat 4y ago

Most comments here are completely missing the point, because they are looking at whether he deserves the money, and it seems “unfair”. Most of the comments here appear just envious to me. I imagine the majority of us would take a $100M lotto winning and keep it, which is a very similar metaphor from an economic and societal inequality outcome. It is similarly “unfair” that the median person in the USA gets to spend $65/day (@2017) while the median person in Mexico gets to spend $10/day[2] ($100M$ is a difference in order, not a difference in kind). I met people in Vietnam working for $50 per month, when a developer in the USA could easily be on $5000 per month, a 100x difference. (100M$/3) per year is 100x a Google developer at $300k, so we can find examples where the differences are proportional. One primary goal in a capitalist society is to maximise your own earnings, at whatever level you are playing the game of capitalism. Most people seem to play this game to some extent (almost certainly if you are involved with a software startup). Most people seem to get very annoyed when someone plays capitalism far better than they do. Most natural born Americans are also conveniently blind to the fact that virtually all Americans get a massive head start at the capitalism game just from the luck of being born in the USA, which gives a huge number of handicap advantages to citizens brought up there. A good capitalist question is: did the VCs receive more than $100M by employing him? (edit: $600M?) IPO valued Coinbase at $99.6bn, so if he managed to increase the IPO price by somewhat more than 0.1%, then the VCs would be in the money, which is all that good wee venture capitalists should really care about. (Edit: ~0.6% because VCs gave up approximately that much worth of shares at IPO? I would guess the options were not worth $600M: I strongly suspect people making up numbers based on share price and ignoring exercise dates). He was employed as Chief Product Officer in February 2020, and the Coinbase IPO on April 14 2020. I would guess him doing his actual job would make negligible difference to the IPO (one month is not enough time to develop the product significantly). It would be interesting to know what they were negotiating, given that the IPO process must have been in finalisation stages. The financial incentives they gave him were more pump-and-dump rather than work-hard-to-build-a-product. Pump-and-dump may have been very aligned with the VC objectives of getting a wildly valuable IPO (although it depends on details of non-trading periods, exercise dates, and structure etcetera). Surojit Chatterjee mentions his background in the blogpost he wrote when he gained the position at Coinbase: “Growing up in India in a poor middle class household”[1]. That cuts out the usual baloney excuse of being born into wealth, and also points out he had the extra serious handicap of not being born into a wealthy country. Nothing I have written above should be surprising, yet so many of the comments here seem to ignore the facts. I strongly believe we can and should question whether the rules of the game of capitalism are sensible for society. However I also think there is little to be gained by saying “unfair” when somebody plays the extremely well (certainly wildly better than I) given the hand they were dealt, and the rules (written and unwritten) as they are. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatterjee https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-beginnings-surojit-chatte... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t...