Connect with us

Blockchain

The avaricious misanthropy of Brian Armstrong

Published

on



You can tell from Brian Armstrong’s opening words that he’s a numbers guy.

“There have been a lot of difficult events in the world this year,” understated the Coinbase CEO in announcing that forthwith, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States would do a better job of ignoring them.

According to Armstrong’s recent blog , Coinbase’s mission is to “create an open financial system for the world”. He left out the second half of the company’s mission statement, the part about being “the leading global brand for helping people convert digital currency into and out of their local currency,” which doesn’t convey the nobility of his purpose as clearly, but does specify the source of his profits.

And it’s really that part we should be focusing on, not the “economic freedom” that he describes as central to Coinbase’s purpose. Because Armstrong doesn’t address economic freedom in his letter. He doesn’t discuss why it is important, or why there’s a need for it, or who is suffering from a lack of it.

Armstrong’s “mission focused” missive, which commits the company to apoliticization, conveniently overlooks the fact that economic freedom is a political and human issue. Proscribed activities at Coinbase now include debating “causes or political candidates internally” and taking on “activism outside of our core mission at work.”

Taken in conjunction with the he subsequently sent to employees in which he offered severance packages worth between four and six months’ pay to those who agreed that “life is too short to work at a company you aren’t excited about”, Armstrong’s posturing on the subject of non-posturing appears to be nothing more than a love letter to stakeholders in a potential IPO, complete with a rich dowry — the excision of dissent from Coinbase’s body politic.

A direct listing for the $8 billion-valued Coinbase has been the subject of within the industry, and that was also the vehicle by Palantir to “cement billionaire fortunes” for co-founder Peter Thiel and CEO Alexander Karp. In a direct listing, shareholders sell directly to buyers and avoid lockups. And how crypto is that?

It’s surely no coincidence that Armstrong’s email to employees was penned just a couple of weeks after  Karp told investors, ahead of his own IPO, that if they want to change the client base or culture they should “pick a different company”.

Karp, not incidentally, has also stated that Silicon Valley’s “engineering elite… may know more than most about building software. But they do not know more about how society should be organized or what justice requires.”

It’s almost as though Armstrong were reading the Palantir IPO playbook.

Microsoft president Brad Smith is this year as saying that “I don’t think our employees are naive. I think sometimes they are idealistic. I think the world needs a combination of idealism and pragmatism.” But he’s one of a diminishing number of tech executives who seem to be comfortable with the notion that employees don’t want to check their beliefs at the entrance to the ‘plex or the Park.

Earlier this year Google fired four employees that it described as “engaged in intentional and often repeated violations of our longstanding data-security policies.” All four had, coincidentally, denounced the company’s treatment of its workers, and were uncomfortable with the company’s relationships with certain government customers.

At Salesforce, employees protested the company’s relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Amazon employees railed against selling facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies. Even Google relented in the face of employee opposition to using AI technology on a drone strike project.

It’s clear that despite the extraordinarily employer-centric nature of American labor laws — which essentially offer carte blanche to employers to fire anyone, anytime, for any reason other than discrimination — Big Tech is facing a reckoning internally as well as externally.

And it’s into this morass that Armstrong has waded, tepidly wielding a commitment to create an anodyne workplace bereft of political discourse that will surely thrill potential investors in Coinbase’s will-they-won’t-they IPO.

There was a time when Google’s motto was “Don’t be evil.” It was a simple, elegant exhortation that helped align the company with the motivations and beliefs of its employees, customers, and yes, even investors. Evil may not have been defined, but that was part of the beauty of the sentiment. It deferred to the sense of righteousness that exists in each of us who choose to work within a “mission focused” organization.

Today that motto is “Do the right thing.” Tell me that isn’t doublespeak for “We’ll decide what’s right, and you can tag along.”

Creating an open financial system for the world is why many of us are involved in the digital asset industry. But our missions, plural, do not exist in a vacuum. And while there is plenty of self-serving in the crypto industry, the opportunity to rectify inequities appeals to many.

Some of us interpret the “economic freedom” enabled by cryptocurrency as an opportunity to escape centralized authority, or to dodge the surveillance capitalists. Some of us see economic freedom as providing a financial infrastructure to the less advantaged citizens of our planet. Some see it as a personal message, a chance to secure our own economic freedom through investment opportunities that are more inclusive than the Cantillon Effect-perpetuating Accredited Investor rules.

However we see it, economic freedom is an inherently political issue. Try as Armstrong might, it cannot be extricated from its historical context and neatly packaged up as a marketing slogan.

Or maybe it can. After all, Palantir lists three guiding ideas on its website, including “Keep focused on the mission,” which isn’t a million miles from Armstrong’s twice-mentioned “laser focus on the mission.”

You don’t need a B.A. in Economics to see where this is going.

Cointelegraph is interested in hearing the stories of Coinbase employees and their reaction to Mr. Armstrong’s letter. Please feel free to contact us in confidence via email at editor@cointelegraph.com or DM our Editor in Chief on Twitter,



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.

Blockchain

The new ‘Bank of England’ is ‘no bank at all’

Published

on

By



As one of the first countries to industrialize in the 1760s, Britain’s manufacturing revolution instigated one of the greatest practical and ubiquitous changes in human history. But even more extraordinary than the cultural shift itself, is the fact that Britain’s industrialization remained way ahead of potential competition for decades. Only in the early 1900s did historians come to grips with the issues of causation. Max Weber’s pithy answer, “the Protestant work ethic,” pointed to Puritan seriousness, diligence, fiscal prudence and hard work. Others point to the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 as a foundation for financial stability.

In contrast, continental Europe lurched from one national debt crisis to another, then threw itself headlong into the Napoleonic wars. Unsurprisingly, it was not until after 1815 that industrialization took place on the European mainland, where it was spearheaded by the new country of Belgium.

250 years later, another revolution has begun with the launch of Bitcoin (BTC), but this one is more commercial in nature than industrial. Though the full impact has yet to play out, the parallels between these two historical events are already striking.

Bitcoin may not match the obviousness of industrialization, but the underlying pragmatics touch on the very foundations of the non-barter economy. Like the establishment of the Bank of England, the creation of the cryptocurrency infrastructure has been prompted by ongoing and worsening threats to financial stability: systemic fault-lines created by macroeconomic challenges stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em…right?

Where a central bank once anchored financial enlightenment, it now plays the role of antagonist. For those who could “connect the dots” in 2008, there was the realization that central banks no longer existed as guardians and protectors of national currencies, but rather as tools for creating politicized market distortions, abandoning their duty to preserve wealth in favor of creating the conditions for limitless, cheap government debt. While many of the underlying intentions were benign, the process inherently worked to punish savers and reward reckless debt.

Meanwhile, it has steadily taken time for the potential of digital assets to reach their potential and approach something like critical mass, though thankfully full acceptance shouldn’t take as long as Britain’s industrial revolution. Over the past 12 years, cryptocurrencies have moved from unknown to novel to significant, growing interest. As a result, profound changes are underway, affecting the mechanics by which investors, the investment industry, wealth managers and even the commercial banking sector are engaging with cryptocurrencies.

This interest has accelerated as we enter into a period of deep economic uncertainty and growing awareness that structural soundness is shifting away from traditional investment options. Not only that, this growing financial innovation and public interest has largely occurred outside of the central banks’ control, if not outright antagonism led by the banks’ regulatory arms in government.

Now, many central banks are trying to join a game they’ve tried almost every way of beating, with digital currencies that adopt the glowing sheen of crypto innovation, but which also eschew the underlying innovations and philosophy that made those innovations so popular to begin with.

Follow or get out of the way

The popularity of cryptocurrency has largely been due to its protean fungibility — it has been whatever the independent financial community has needed it to be, from digital currency to speculative financial instruments to smart contracts that can power smart financial technology.

However hard central banks might try to co-opt the hype of cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency succeeding will mark the fundamental end of critical aspects of the central banking monopoly by offering a more competitive vehicle for facilitating commercial transactions and providing a more stable medium to store monetized assets. Cryptocurrencies actually offer real returns on “cash” deposits, something that the fiat banking system has long since abandoned. Most of all, cryptocurrencies reveal the fictitious nature of fiat currencies as a principle.

Cryptocurrencies as an ecosystem will increasingly constrain, redirect and set the parameters for government macroeconomic policies. Certainly, sound alternatives to fiat currencies will drive the latter to the periphery of commercial life, concomitantly reducing the number of tools the nation-state has at its disposal to regulate or respond to changing economic conditions. Above all, this means that government financial engagement can no longer be a rule unto itself. It will have to engage by the same principles as everyone else. A level playing field here has dramatic implications.

Against the backdrop of the essential limits of fiat currencies, current geo- and macroeconomic policies and a new emerging world order, cryptocurrencies offer vast potential as an efficiency facilitating frictionless commerce and investment, a medium of stability against uncertainty and inflation, increased security in value transfer and wealth management, optimum autonomy in an increasingly intrusive climate, and “cash” asset preservation/growth in a world of negative interest rates.

The edifice that supports the concept of a “global reserve currency” is also weakening. This will reduce political influence over global finance, as well as nations’ abilities to run a long-term balance of payments deficits, current account deficits and borrow at little or no interest. Indeed, given current trends, changes in trading mechanics may speedily evolve to the point that such “reserve currencies” no longer have a function at all. And cryptocurrency success will hasten the end of the U.S. dollar monopoly in global commerce.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

James Gillingham is the CEO and a co-founder of Finxflo. James is engaged in developing and implementing strategic plans and company policies, maintaining an open dialogue with stakeholders and driving organizational success. He is an expert in managing and executing high-level strategic objectives with more than 13 years’ experience in building, developing and expanding multinational organizations. His deep knowledge of financial markets, digital currencies and fintech has played a pivotal role in his success to date.