Coinbase announces proposed direct listing(blog.coinbase.com)
blog.coinbase.com
Coinbase announces proposed direct listing
https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-announces-proposed-direct-listing-3a52c4298ccc
221 comments
Given the hype, the most likely scenario is a > 2X price spike in the first few minutes of trading regardless of the initial market cap ($100B+?). For those of us who believe that, what is the best strategy for purchasing shares ? It's doubtful brokers will allow market orders the previous night since the ticker might not yet exist, and if one places a market order during the first few minutes the cynic in me predicts a retail trader will get the worst deal.
I think generally you can place an order before the market opens, maybe even the day before, but that doesn't really give you any pricing power. It will still pop at the open and your order may not clear until it does. But that may still put you ahead of the Robinhood masses.
Better option might be to try a pre-IPO trading platform like EquityZen.
Better option might be to try a pre-IPO trading platform like EquityZen.
From EquitZen's knowledge center:
"Shares that are the subject of investment through EquityZen are generally subject to a lock-up period of up to 180 days after the effectiveness of a company's IPO filing, during which time shareholders are restricted from selling their shares."[1]
The 180day lock-up period could EquityZen poorly suited for investors with a short time horizon.
"Shares that are the subject of investment through EquityZen are generally subject to a lock-up period of up to 180 days after the effectiveness of a company's IPO filing, during which time shareholders are restricted from selling their shares."[1]
The 180day lock-up period could EquityZen poorly suited for investors with a short time horizon.
In this case though, Coinbase is doing a direct listing, not an IPO. I think there is usually no lockup associated with a direct listing.
[deleted]
Er, PLTR still had a lockup for its direct listing. If this trend continues the “usually” aspect will not hold.
Could you do what Mark Cuban did and work with your brokerage to do sell calls & buy puts around the strike? That would lock in your price for a given amount of time.
should be the other way around - buy calls and sell puts.
that said, options usually are available a few days after the ipo, so may not accomplish the objective
that said, options usually are available a few days after the ipo, so may not accomplish the objective
If you had a sizable fortune at stake, you'd go to a major financial firm like Goldman Sachs, which handled the collar for Cuban, and they'll build you something custom. Almost any arrangement can be worked out, with a fat fee to go with it.
That only applies to IPOs. In a direct listing the shares start trading at the published reference price. There is no underwriting or other ceremony around it.
For a direct listing, does that mean Coinbase could conceivably charge any price they want for a market order given they are the only seller when it is first listed ?
Other existing shareholders can sell as well (there's no lockup), and I guess short sellers could sell immediately? But yeah issuing a market on open order for a new stock would be a "courageous" move (but IMO that's true of any market order - don't use a market order instead of a limit order unless you're genuinely willing to buy at $999 / sell at $0.01).
Could be a lockup still. There was for palantir.
CB just did a private offering through Nasdaq private market formerly Second Market. Couldn’t figure out how to participate in that.
I believe you need to email [email protected]
What you probably want is a snap to market order meaning that if you're buying, it will snap to the ask, selling, to the bid. I use snap mid orders, usually get decent fills without getting retail'ed.
This is always how it works. Institutionals always get first dibs (and the middle, and the last)
Not with a direct listing.
Coinbase shares would be subject to an auction and the market for them will open at the price where supply meets demand.
Coinbase shares would be subject to an auction and the market for them will open at the price where supply meets demand.
Not entirely true - since people had to enter a single point on their demand curve as a price and quantity of shares (instead of their entire demand curve) the market clearing price was artificially low. Hence the price pop on day one. To think about it more in depth - assume I enter a bid of 100 shares at $100. If the market clearing price is $50, I’ll be awarded 100 shares at $50. However, I was willing to buy far more than that at a higher price, so I’d go buy more shares on the open market, driving the price up.
This is complete bullshit, you can enter your entire demand curve into the market with various bids.
No, you’re wrong. You’re not taking a bidders budget into account. If I enter 20 points on my demand curve ans they’re all above the clearing price, I’ll end up being forced to buy the quantities of all my bids. That may totally bust my budget. There are no stop limit orders in these auctions...there’s only a buy order with a quantity and a price.
If you are willing to by 100 shares at $100 or, say, 200 shares at $50 you can enter the following two bids:
100 shares at $100
100 shares at $50
This will satisfy your demand curve.
In a direct listing, the initially listed shares will all transact at the same price (the clearing price).
100 shares at $100
100 shares at $50
This will satisfy your demand curve.
In a direct listing, the initially listed shares will all transact at the same price (the clearing price).
That’s a contrived example though. Say you put 200 shares at $50. If the clearing price is $50, you’ve won 300 shares at $50 - $15,000 total. What if you only have $10,000?
I’m saying it’s difficult to a) allow bidders to enter a demand curve b) respect their budget limitations c) keep it easily understandable for bidders.
[deleted]
Why would you put 200 shares at $50 and 100 shares at $100 if you only had a $10,000 budget? That's misrepresenting your actual demand curve.
Are you saying that an auction of this kind is a bit complicated, and it's possible to make a mistake? I suppose that might be true, but that is a very different assertion from your original position:
"since people had to enter a single point on their demand curve as a price and quantity of shares (instead of their entire demand curve)"
Are you saying that an auction of this kind is a bit complicated, and it's possible to make a mistake? I suppose that might be true, but that is a very different assertion from your original position:
"since people had to enter a single point on their demand curve as a price and quantity of shares (instead of their entire demand curve)"
You can issue your whole curve as orders, can't you? Something like: buy 50 shares limit $200 on open, buy 50 shares limit $100 on open, buy 100 shares limit $50 on open.
There’s only buy orders in these auctions: buy X shares at Y price.
The limit is the price. With the "at open" I was thinking about direct listings where you'd need some way to prevent your order being filled after the opening auction (and potentially at a different price), but with an IPO that's not an issue at all. So you should definitely be able to just put your whole curve in.
[deleted]
But the point is that everyone with a bid >=$50 got filled.
If I am willing to buy 100 shares at $100, I may be willing to buy 300 shares at $60. So just because my bid got filled doesn't mean I won't be buying more.
If you're willing to buy 300 shares at 60, but only 100 shares at $100 you can enter two bids:
100 shares at $100
200 shares at $60
This will satisfy your demand position.
100 shares at $100
200 shares at $60
This will satisfy your demand position.
If the person has only 18000 though (300 at 60) then if they put in 100 at $100, they'll only be able to buy 133 at 60.
I would still enter two bids; it's just a matter of adjusting how many at each level.
I would still enter two bids; it's just a matter of adjusting how many at each level.
No, this is not how it works.
All the shares in the auction are sold at the same price. If the market clears at 60, a person entering the bids I described would buy 300 shares at 60.
All the shares in the auction are sold at the same price. If the market clears at 60, a person entering the bids I described would buy 300 shares at 60.
thanks. concise.
Institutional investors still win the day here, because Coinbase opened a private secondary market for them this week to buy shares ahead of the IPO.
After a new listing, retail can buy at the same instant as institutions, as long as the retail broker allows it, and many do.
Well not necessarily... didn't google use a dutch auction 15 years ago?
No, a Dutch auction a single product with the price ticking down. They used an OpenIPO auction format.
I’m not sure there are big pops on OTC listings, as the pop on an institutional listing is the difference between what they sold shares at to raise money the previous night and what the market values them at in real life.
Since you’re not raising money in an OTC listing, trading should begin roughly at market price, no?
I could be wrong I don’t really play IPOs. Well, SPACs, haha.
Since you’re not raising money in an OTC listing, trading should begin roughly at market price, no?
I could be wrong I don’t really play IPOs. Well, SPACs, haha.
If a SPAC is floated to do this retail investors might still have a chance
The SPAC would have to convince Coinbase that it's in their interests to go public via reverse merger rather than direct listing. This seems pretty unlikely, given that they've already filed their S-1, announced the direct listing, and presumably have done all the paperwork related to being a public company.
There's a bit of an adverse-selection problem with SPACs: not only do they need to find an undervalued asset that the public markets will value for more than the acquisition price, they need to convince that asset that the SPAC adds value and can take them public easier than doing the process themselves would. Big tech companies like Coinbase, AirBnB, and Roblox have plenty of money to hire the lawyers, accountants, and investment bankers that going public themselves requires.
There's a bit of an adverse-selection problem with SPACs: not only do they need to find an undervalued asset that the public markets will value for more than the acquisition price, they need to convince that asset that the SPAC adds value and can take them public easier than doing the process themselves would. Big tech companies like Coinbase, AirBnB, and Roblox have plenty of money to hire the lawyers, accountants, and investment bankers that going public themselves requires.
Either pre-IPO trading or wait until the dust settles and then decide whether to buy or not.
You can trade Coinbase shared pre-IPO on FTX (unfortunately, not available to US users). The stock trading infra seems weird but makes sense under the hood and is reliable (happy to answer any questions people have).
https://ftx.com/trade/CBSE/USD
(this was mostly informational, but if anyone actually decides to use the platform and wants to get 5% off trading fees, also happy to share a referral link)
https://ftx.com/trade/CBSE/USD
(this was mostly informational, but if anyone actually decides to use the platform and wants to get 5% off trading fees, also happy to share a referral link)
Do you work for FTX? If so, best way to contact you?
Obviously this was planned well in advance, but what a day to make this announcement.
How long until Coinbase blocks the buying of popular tickers too because powerful hedge funds tell them?
Coinbase isn’t the only game in town fortunately. Arbitrage and the decentralized nature of crypto makes it impossible to stop. RobinHood just removing the buy button hopefully opened some eyes today to how rigged the traditional system is. It is free market when it benefits the powers that be. When it goes awry, they are always bailed out.
Bernie put it best today- “The business model of Wall Street is fraud.”
Anyone that wants out of this system, come over with me to where the crypto is. It has its flaws, but not like this.
Bernie put it best today- “The business model of Wall Street is fraud.”
Anyone that wants out of this system, come over with me to where the crypto is. It has its flaws, but not like this.
I want cryptocurrency to succeed long-term, and it has some genuine advantages (and some wrinkles to be ironed-out long-term), but protection from the puppet master cabal secretly pulling the strings of high finance isn't one of them.
There are much more mundane explanations for Robinhood's actions[0][1] than a high-finance cabal hiding in plain sight.
Is there some institutional conspiracy theory version of Hanlon's razor, something like "Never ascribe to a secret cabal that which is ascribable to finite resources and inflexible regulations"?
Disclosure: currently short to the puppet master lizard people cabal from Nibiru a double-touch knockout option on my soul ;-)
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8bpx/experts-say-robinhood...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950685
There are much more mundane explanations for Robinhood's actions[0][1] than a high-finance cabal hiding in plain sight.
Is there some institutional conspiracy theory version of Hanlon's razor, something like "Never ascribe to a secret cabal that which is ascribable to finite resources and inflexible regulations"?
Disclosure: currently short to the puppet master lizard people cabal from Nibiru a double-touch knockout option on my soul ;-)
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8bpx/experts-say-robinhood...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950685
Hanlon's Electric Shaver: Never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to locally bad incentives.
Not likely because the market makers will have to compete with DeFi on chain.
Coinbase has frozen trading of various cryptos before.
They have already paused trading during periods of high turmoil. When bcash was announced, for instance. I think that actually set their standard for "open the market in 'post only' mode for a period before actually starting trading".
The term "Bcash" is a social engineering attack against big blocks[0]. This attack has been so successful, the name still shows on Wikipedia[1].
[0] https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash
[0] https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/why-some-people-call-bit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash
Is it? Or is trying to call it """bitcoin"" cash an attempt to confuse potential users?
Perhaps, if it wasn't a fork of Bitcoin. If was originally called Cash Coin and rebranded to Bitcoin Cash, then it would seem likely that group is trying to capitalize on the name. That's not the case here. This name came naturally, just like similar names occur in other forked software.[0]
Bitcoin Cash came from a minority group (big blocks) in the Bitcoin community.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice [1] https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-deba...
Bitcoin Cash came from a minority group (big blocks) in the Bitcoin community.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice [1] https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-deba...
I think calling CAD the Canadian “”dollar”” is an attempt to confuse people! /s
[deleted]
> How long until Coinbase blocks the buying of popular tickers too because powerful hedge funds tell them?
Plot twist: they already have, and worse. Check the historic BCH fiasco.
Plot twist: they already have, and worse. Check the historic BCH fiasco.
They'll just block all users from logging in when they see fit, continue to claim it's because their servers can't handle the load, in fact it's a weak cover story of them trying to prevent impulse selling when Bitcoin et al start skyrocketing - e.g. market manipulation; it's what, happened at least 4 times now?
I wonder if they would have blocked the purchase of Dog coin
Coinbase fiendishly doesn’t carry Dogecoin in the first place.
Doge Coin?
The AirBNB listing showed that banks favor their friends and clients in an IPO, when the price surged well before the debut allowed us Little People to buy. A direct listing would be cool and I hope they pursue that.
That’s the standard.
However, Airbnb allocated a number of shares to its own hosts, and a lot of Little People were able to partake in that if they were on the ball.
However, Airbnb allocated a number of shares to its own hosts, and a lot of Little People were able to partake in that if they were on the ball.
Meh. 7% allocation. Like most charitable efforts by companies, optics first, generosity much further down the list.
Alternatively - Airbnb selected investors that they knew would hold the stock and support their long-term vision for the product/brand.
Those investors being inclined to hold, did not sell, yielding a relatively small float that was massively outstripped by demand, causing the price to skyrocket.
Maybe some of those investors were friends of the bankers and cashed out but that would only be (a small) part of the story
Those investors being inclined to hold, did not sell, yielding a relatively small float that was massively outstripped by demand, causing the price to skyrocket.
Maybe some of those investors were friends of the bankers and cashed out but that would only be (a small) part of the story
Right. The selected investors that doubled the stock price before opening bell on day 1.
Why isn't Coinbase doing a security token offering?
Real money for me, not for thee.
reducesuffering, thank you for making me chuckle.
In keeping with the grand theory that cryptocoins allow the rediscovery of financial regulations and procedures from first principles, the following could happen:
* Coinbase uses the funding to get to the point where they can release a "dual currency" set of stock. One set of stock based on being traditional shares purchased with USD, one set based on being a tied to a "share token" purchased with whatever people choose to exchange (but initially sold by Coinbase for bitcoin). Presumably they would have voting rights per share tied to the conversion between bitcoin to usd.
* The normal shares are regulated in the boring SEC way.
* The share tokens are regulated according to wild west tech rules. Tokens are stolen, token private keys are lost, exchanges rediscover circuit breakers on facilitating token trades, etc.
I think there is also a second story if Coinbase were to release share tokens: Many scamcoins are essentially a way to buy shares in some service that does not fully exist yet, but has great upside potential. If this super simplistic description sounds like investing in stocks, then watching Coinbase share tokens toe the line between "scam coin" and "real deal Wall St. asset" will be an interesting experience.
In keeping with the grand theory that cryptocoins allow the rediscovery of financial regulations and procedures from first principles, the following could happen:
* Coinbase uses the funding to get to the point where they can release a "dual currency" set of stock. One set of stock based on being traditional shares purchased with USD, one set based on being a tied to a "share token" purchased with whatever people choose to exchange (but initially sold by Coinbase for bitcoin). Presumably they would have voting rights per share tied to the conversion between bitcoin to usd.
* The normal shares are regulated in the boring SEC way.
* The share tokens are regulated according to wild west tech rules. Tokens are stolen, token private keys are lost, exchanges rediscover circuit breakers on facilitating token trades, etc.
I think there is also a second story if Coinbase were to release share tokens: Many scamcoins are essentially a way to buy shares in some service that does not fully exist yet, but has great upside potential. If this super simplistic description sounds like investing in stocks, then watching Coinbase share tokens toe the line between "scam coin" and "real deal Wall St. asset" will be an interesting experience.
a way to buy shares in some service that does not fully exist yet, but has great upside potential
Time for a SPAC token offering!
Time for a SPAC token offering!
Because there's already a lot of network effects built in to the existing exchanges and crypto infrastructure for trading securities is still immature, albeit promising.
What's out their right now in the way of crypt infra for securities / stock trading?
I predict that as the news digests GAMESTONKS, we're gonna see a decent amount of talk about crypto and a block-chain based stock market.
But I'm far out of the crypto loop these days so IDK what the contenders are.
I predict that as the news digests GAMESTONKS, we're gonna see a decent amount of talk about crypto and a block-chain based stock market.
But I'm far out of the crypto loop these days so IDK what the contenders are.
https://www.tzero.com/ is a major one from the former Overstock CEO.
I guess it's a proof they don't believe it.
I suspect the plan is to raise tons of fiat then pump their BTC holdings via grayscale.
My god, that would be amazing.
1. Coinbase raises money from the IPO. 2. Coinbase takes some of that money and gives it to Grayscale. 3. Grayscale uses the money to buy cryptocurrency... On Coinbase!
Not only do Coinbase shares appreciate from the increased value of assets on their balance sheet, but they earn some of their money back from fees, too. Just make sure that steps #1 and #2 have some delay, after any lock-up period.
And since Grayscale can only divest from its funds for fees and doesn't allow redemption, more cryptocurrency tokens get "locked" in the funds indefinitely, unable to affect the spot price.
1. Coinbase raises money from the IPO. 2. Coinbase takes some of that money and gives it to Grayscale. 3. Grayscale uses the money to buy cryptocurrency... On Coinbase!
Not only do Coinbase shares appreciate from the increased value of assets on their balance sheet, but they earn some of their money back from fees, too. Just make sure that steps #1 and #2 have some delay, after any lock-up period.
And since Grayscale can only divest from its funds for fees and doesn't allow redemption, more cryptocurrency tokens get "locked" in the funds indefinitely, unable to affect the spot price.
They don't need Grayscale. They could just buy BTC themselves.
So what you're saying is Coins go up?
So, just like a stock buy back, just a bit more complicated..
They are thenselves institutional BTC holders, so I'm not sure if they need to outsource it.
Microstrategy is using Coinbase.
Microstrategy is using Coinbase.
That's my point exactly.
Traditional stock market buys tons of coinbase cash -> coinbase uses said cash to market-buy BTC with bots driving the price up -> BTC/their crypto of choice is now worth far more.
If the market follows their run they end up making far more than they reinvested.
Traditional stock market buys tons of coinbase cash -> coinbase uses said cash to market-buy BTC with bots driving the price up -> BTC/their crypto of choice is now worth far more.
If the market follows their run they end up making far more than they reinvested.
Yeah but what does grayscale have to do with it? Doesn't make sense.
not only that, but they custody grayscale's btc. they definitely don't need grayscale.
The quantity of potential capital raised I would assume.
Ostensibly not enough faith in security tokens as a method of managing shares. Still surprising from a strategic angle considering an acquisition of a platform like Carta could have given them a head start.
Because it is a technology company built with traditional fiat investments.
Yeah, fuck the stock market at this point.
My shower thought the other day:
How much money would Coinbase have, if instead of building the company they had just bought Bitcoin back in 2012 with their seed money?
I think it had dropped to about $7.50 around then.
How much money would Coinbase have, if instead of building the company they had just bought Bitcoin back in 2012 with their seed money?
I think it had dropped to about $7.50 around then.
Would bitcoin be where it is today without Coinbase?
Not to say it's impossible, but their work and approach definitely helped bring Bitcoin to the masses.
Not to say it's impossible, but their work and approach definitely helped bring Bitcoin to the masses.
Same reason why the 10,000 BTC pizza was necessary. If no one ever bought anything with Bitcoin, Bitcoin would remain worthless.
This is still a highly debated thesis. Just using BTC to store value away from a volatile fiat currency and eventually exchange for a different, more stable currency, is another candidate for the underlying valuation model, no widespread medium of exchange beyond currency trading needed.
If you live in Venezuela, converting to BTC even if you cannot buy anything with it but perhaps Columbian or Brazilian currency at a slight loss, is a hugely valuable capability, with significant advantages over both traditional fiat currency exchanges and custodial stores of value like gold.
What is the total global demand for cryptocurrency for this use case? Certainly not anywhere close to the total market cap of first world fiat currencies, but also probably still much higher than today’s total market cap of BTC.
This stands in contrast to smart contract and d-app marketplace currency like ETH, which has a completely different hypothetical valuation model.
If you live in Venezuela, converting to BTC even if you cannot buy anything with it but perhaps Columbian or Brazilian currency at a slight loss, is a hugely valuable capability, with significant advantages over both traditional fiat currency exchanges and custodial stores of value like gold.
What is the total global demand for cryptocurrency for this use case? Certainly not anywhere close to the total market cap of first world fiat currencies, but also probably still much higher than today’s total market cap of BTC.
This stands in contrast to smart contract and d-app marketplace currency like ETH, which has a completely different hypothetical valuation model.
Permanent deflation usually ends in hyperinflation. At some point the thing that your magic internet money represents disappears all at once.
Yeah true.
My point is more that I find it a bit sad that 'just buying bitcoin' rather than doing work paid better than basically any work anyone has done since 2012, even building insanely successful startups.
My point is more that I find it a bit sad that 'just buying bitcoin' rather than doing work paid better than basically any work anyone has done since 2012, even building insanely successful startups.
About $2.6 billion.
Which means selling shovels is still roughly 30x better than buying shovels.
Which means selling shovels is still roughly 30x better than buying shovels.
There were people and companies that bought massive amounts of bitcoin. Winklevoss twins weren't even early and they own 1% of all bitcoin.
I was with a group of Coinbase employees that did the math on this in about 2018. Even then, Coinbase was a bit ahead.
Which has gone up in value faster since 2018?
Coinbase. Bitcoin tripled and I think Coinbase is up much more.
Coinbase can be the next Robinhood.
It will be much better if the crypto community moved to decentralized exchanges like Bisq.
It will be much better if the crypto community moved to decentralized exchanges like Bisq.
Uniswap is already huge.
For Bisq to succeed governments needs to clamp down on central exchanges, but so far that is not happening.
For Bisq to succeed governments needs to clamp down on central exchanges, but so far that is not happening.
Uniswap can only trade ERC-20 tokens, though.
The tokenisation of everything will happen; much like securitisation. You already have WBTC (wrapped Bitcoin).
Not everything. A wrapped Monero wouldn't make much sense.
Can you really call Bisq decentralized when they've pulled moves like this: https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/61
Umm, yes? BCH is a shitcoin, and if you disagree, you can always fork Bisq. That is the whole point.
So if coinbase was open source, and you had forked it to add BSV support, that’d mean coinbase was decentralized?! Open source/forkability != decentralization. The whole point of decentralization is no particular entity gets to decide something for everybody, and that’s precisely why it’ll take a long long time for regulators to be okay with it.
If there's one thing to take away from the GME debacle it is that organized, incentivized retail investors can make a stock do crazy things.
Now take that and multiply it by a factorial with the general interest, shilling, and breadth of the crypto community!
Recipe for INSANITY around this listing.
Now take that and multiply it by a factorial with the general interest, shilling, and breadth of the crypto community!
Recipe for INSANITY around this listing.
It's another centralized exchange though.
I think the DeFi work is more interesting, particularly stuff like this: https://uniswap.org/
Still early, but truly decentralized exchanges are super interesting.
I think the DeFi work is more interesting, particularly stuff like this: https://uniswap.org/
Still early, but truly decentralized exchanges are super interesting.
Yes, but Coinbase is one of the major gateways to that. Most people will need to use a CEX to convert their Fiat to crypto.
Yeah, I agree and think it's likely to do well as the dominant and trusted centralized exchange to get fiat in and out.
I just don't see them as that different from Robinhood in the service they provide and the risks associated with it.
I just don't see them as that different from Robinhood in the service they provide and the risks associated with it.
We are on the same page. Defi is the future. I'm hopeful this is a big step in getting there.
Good free markets should be free. No government bailouts no problem.
...maybe if we have the one true Geiger Counter to call the debt jubilees
Are you familiar with the work of Michael Hudson? I just learned of "...and forgive them their debts" [0], and looking forward to reading it.
While I'm generally in favor of debt forgiveness for 2021 America, in his talks he's primarily described jubilees in the context of regime change: a new conquering emperor, or an aspiring revolutionary leader, cancels the debts to secure the loyalty of workers and soldiers, and the nobility has to acquiesce at the point of a sword.
What I can't figure out is how this could be done on a predictable timetable (as per the Biblical jubilee concept: every 7 or 50 years). In a conquest scenario, a lender might only withhold lending if the current power structure looked weak; but if debt forgiveness was institutionalized, why wouldn't they just cease all lending on Year 6 or Year 49? (Or, more likely: fold the probability of forgiveness into a usurious interest rate, so they collect the same income on average.)
As it stands, I think debt forgiveness can only be done as a one-time solution to gross inequality and/or social instability; and that institutional reform (to not need jubilees) has to be done upstream (such as public banking, Georgist land trusts, etc). But I'm very open to being convinced otherwise.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42515482-and-forgive-the...
While I'm generally in favor of debt forgiveness for 2021 America, in his talks he's primarily described jubilees in the context of regime change: a new conquering emperor, or an aspiring revolutionary leader, cancels the debts to secure the loyalty of workers and soldiers, and the nobility has to acquiesce at the point of a sword.
What I can't figure out is how this could be done on a predictable timetable (as per the Biblical jubilee concept: every 7 or 50 years). In a conquest scenario, a lender might only withhold lending if the current power structure looked weak; but if debt forgiveness was institutionalized, why wouldn't they just cease all lending on Year 6 or Year 49? (Or, more likely: fold the probability of forgiveness into a usurious interest rate, so they collect the same income on average.)
As it stands, I think debt forgiveness can only be done as a one-time solution to gross inequality and/or social instability; and that institutional reform (to not need jubilees) has to be done upstream (such as public banking, Georgist land trusts, etc). But I'm very open to being convinced otherwise.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42515482-and-forgive-the...
I am aware-ish of that and (edit, forgot the "and") Graeber's book but haven't read either.
The Geiger counter randomized debt jubilee is a bit of a play on the scheduling problem.
I do agree debt jubilees only make sense as a emergency post-hoc fix. If you think about it, UBI + good confiscatory taxes at the margins is basically a nice smoothed amortized debt jubilee. That's much better.
The Geiger counter randomized debt jubilee is a bit of a play on the scheduling problem.
I do agree debt jubilees only make sense as a emergency post-hoc fix. If you think about it, UBI + good confiscatory taxes at the margins is basically a nice smoothed amortized debt jubilee. That's much better.
Ha, Graeber's debt book is a different one [0]. I can vouch for its excellence, but I don't recall him discussing jubilees much.
A cursory search isn't turning up much, do you have any reading material for the Geiger counter idea? Or is that something you're spit-balling just now? :)
Agreed on UBI, etc. One thing I've been thinking a lot about is the Ultimatum Game [1], and what it would look like to scale up that concept to a society. In a sense, that's the realpolitik of every state: if the peasants are sufficiently unhappy, they show up with torches and pitchforks, even at the cost of their short-term interests. The modern peaceful version is "vote the bums out", but that's always been of dubious efficacy; and it feels especially toothless today, given the scope of regulatory capture and "manufactured consent" in the two-party system. The next closest thing (without resorting to violence) probably looks like a General Strike, but that's one hell of a coordination problem.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
A cursory search isn't turning up much, do you have any reading material for the Geiger counter idea? Or is that something you're spit-balling just now? :)
Agreed on UBI, etc. One thing I've been thinking a lot about is the Ultimatum Game [1], and what it would look like to scale up that concept to a society. In a sense, that's the realpolitik of every state: if the peasants are sufficiently unhappy, they show up with torches and pitchforks, even at the cost of their short-term interests. The modern peaceful version is "vote the bums out", but that's always been of dubious efficacy; and it feels especially toothless today, given the scope of regulatory capture and "manufactured consent" in the two-party system. The next closest thing (without resorting to violence) probably looks like a General Strike, but that's one hell of a coordination problem.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
> is a different one
Yes, I forgot the "and". "that Graeber" lol. Pity there is no more "that graeber" :(. To think Chomsky outlived him...crazy...
> Or is that something you're spit-balling just now? :)
Pure spitball. If predictibility causes bias, try randomness. PRNG is fine except one could exfiltrate the hidden state maybe? So try something even more black-box like a hunk of radioactive something.
> Agreed on UBI
:)
> One thing I've been thinking a lot about is the Ultimatum Game [1], and what it would look like to scale up that concept to a society. In a sense, that's the realpolitik of every state: if the peasants are sufficiently unhappy, they show up with torches and pitchforks, even at the cost of their short-term interests. The modern peaceful version is "vote the bums out", but that's always been of dubious efficacy; and it feels especially toothless today, given the scope of regulatory capture and "manufactured consent" in the two-party system. The next closest thing (without resorting to violence) probably looks like a General Strike, but that's one hell of a coordination problem.
There is the quote "I have found out what economics is; it is the science of confusing stocks with flows". I had some crude thoughts in my own head, but with some friend's advise on putting in that terminology, it seems both that the stocks are are more fictions and the source of the economic problems of society. I question the ultimate game example then because it seems very "stocks first", dividing up some amount one off. I would much rather see "capitalism without ownership" or "rents all the way down".
Yes, I forgot the "and". "that Graeber" lol. Pity there is no more "that graeber" :(. To think Chomsky outlived him...crazy...
> Or is that something you're spit-balling just now? :)
Pure spitball. If predictibility causes bias, try randomness. PRNG is fine except one could exfiltrate the hidden state maybe? So try something even more black-box like a hunk of radioactive something.
> Agreed on UBI
:)
> One thing I've been thinking a lot about is the Ultimatum Game [1], and what it would look like to scale up that concept to a society. In a sense, that's the realpolitik of every state: if the peasants are sufficiently unhappy, they show up with torches and pitchforks, even at the cost of their short-term interests. The modern peaceful version is "vote the bums out", but that's always been of dubious efficacy; and it feels especially toothless today, given the scope of regulatory capture and "manufactured consent" in the two-party system. The next closest thing (without resorting to violence) probably looks like a General Strike, but that's one hell of a coordination problem.
There is the quote "I have found out what economics is; it is the science of confusing stocks with flows". I had some crude thoughts in my own head, but with some friend's advise on putting in that terminology, it seems both that the stocks are are more fictions and the source of the economic problems of society. I question the ultimate game example then because it seems very "stocks first", dividing up some amount one off. I would much rather see "capitalism without ownership" or "rents all the way down".
[deleted]
Then eventually things implode, society collapses, a dictator takes over after claiming they will help the starving masses and so on. Starving masses who have lost their life savings do not make for a good place to live even if you avoid being one of them. Society should be protected from the fallout of capitalism to a reasonable degree.
I don’t know what the alternative is are you in favour of propping up private companies and keeping this status quo? That’s alternative of free markets. Right now they aren’t free. AOC and Ben Shapiro of all people agree for once. This is a stage 7 brundlefly economic system.
"Free markets" are never perfectly free or even close to it. Only the writers of utopian libertarian science fiction think that.
The question is how you manage that lack of freedom and to whose benefit you try to manage it. I prefer it be managed towards the general stability of society. Of course it will be managed in an imperfect way but I prefer the goal be a stable society.
edit: The government intervening will never really make the market more free but it wasn't free to begin with (see robinhood today). So you lose a bit more freedom but you shift the benefit of the overall loss of freedom from "a bunch of rich people get richer" to "society as a whole get's richer and more stable." Not fully but a bit further.
The question is how you manage that lack of freedom and to whose benefit you try to manage it. I prefer it be managed towards the general stability of society. Of course it will be managed in an imperfect way but I prefer the goal be a stable society.
edit: The government intervening will never really make the market more free but it wasn't free to begin with (see robinhood today). So you lose a bit more freedom but you shift the benefit of the overall loss of freedom from "a bunch of rich people get richer" to "society as a whole get's richer and more stable." Not fully but a bit further.
While i agree with you in principle, there's a difference between "this market is regulated" and "this market will be bailed out at random on the whims of politicians, while this other market or firm won't" in which case we start to have issues.
My argument is government intervention is the problem. You can’t fix the problem with more of the problem. Say your house was on fire do you add more fire until it burns down and call that problem solved.
Protected by people with lofty ideals like yourself? Where are these high minded incorruptible individuals?
Governments are the cause of mass starvation and murders, please see China, USSR, Germany, and on and on.
Governments are the cause of mass starvation and murders, please see China, USSR, Germany, and on and on.
Governments also commit mass murder on behalf of the interests of private capital, ranging from feudal land enclosures, to the United Fruit Company in Honduras [0], to modern oil interests and the military-industrial complex.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
> Governments are the cause of mass starvation and murders, please see China, USSR, Germany, and on and on.
Organised groups of people do these things, governmental or not - private corporations are responsible for plenty of similar occurrences, and so are NGOs (e.g. religious groups). Centralisation of power is bad, absence of checks and balances is bad, lack of accountability is bad - but insisting that limited-liability corporations be allowed to grow arbitrarily large is the opposite of avoiding those problems.
Organised groups of people do these things, governmental or not - private corporations are responsible for plenty of similar occurrences, and so are NGOs (e.g. religious groups). Centralisation of power is bad, absence of checks and balances is bad, lack of accountability is bad - but insisting that limited-liability corporations be allowed to grow arbitrarily large is the opposite of avoiding those problems.
>Governments are the cause of mass starvation and murders, please see China, USSR, Germany, and on and on.
All caused by revolutions caused by massive economic issues and societal issues. In other words, capitalistic collapse of society leads to dictatorship which leads to horrible things. Like I said in the post you replied to. So thank you for making my argument for me.
All caused by revolutions caused by massive economic issues and societal issues. In other words, capitalistic collapse of society leads to dictatorship which leads to horrible things. Like I said in the post you replied to. So thank you for making my argument for me.
actually, it has shown time and time again that unregulated capitalism is just not working for a majority of the population.
The myth of the "free market" is in the same vein as the centrally planned economy of a socialist state.
The myth of the "free market" is in the same vein as the centrally planned economy of a socialist state.
If you lost your life savings on GME, you deserve to starve
edit: the only way you could be losing your life savings on GME is with a dumb, arrogant short position. yes, you should starve...isn't this what a short sale is anyway? A bet that someone else will starve?
edit: the only way you could be losing your life savings on GME is with a dumb, arrogant short position. yes, you should starve...isn't this what a short sale is anyway? A bet that someone else will starve?
Personally I prefer to not be stabbed to death by a starving person who lost their life savings on GME so they can steal $10 from my wallet. Massive societal implosions tend to have a large blast radius.
I think you don't appreciate how angry people on WSB are. It's pure distilled anger. They want to relieve that anger somewhere and do it nonviolently. A handful of people losing money is the perfect pressure valve.
If you deny them this opportunity to vent their anger then they are highly likely to stab you, not because they wanted $10 from your wallet, nah it's because they are still angry and want someone to pay for it and going by the events that lead to WW2 a lot of them considered a life to be an equally valid price.
If you deny them this opportunity to vent their anger then they are highly likely to stab you, not because they wanted $10 from your wallet, nah it's because they are still angry and want someone to pay for it and going by the events that lead to WW2 a lot of them considered a life to be an equally valid price.
So basically, “heads I win, tails you lose” for the institutional investors because you’re worried about the possible fall out?
The comment I replied to was "Good free markets should be free. No government bailouts no problem." Not "no bailouts for hedge funds doing shorts." See the distinction?
People on WSB tell you these things all the time:
Never use margin trading.
Only invest what you can lose.
Remember, they have grown thick skin and know what losing money is like. It only takes one lesson to learn that.
Never use margin trading.
Only invest what you can lose.
Remember, they have grown thick skin and know what losing money is like. It only takes one lesson to learn that.
Why?
No they can't. That's the entire point. If you short almost all shares of a stock then you are the one who is doing crazy things and other people are just giving you a reason to dance like a crazy monkey.
too bad you can't get that ticker symbol
If this listing happens, BTC will go above 150k in 2021.
Too many people with money and time on their hands.
Too many people with money and time on their hands.
Curious what the accounting rules are around their BTC on the balance sheet. Would be wild if they had to mark to market.
What does this mean for people investing small amounts (~1k) in crypto with Coinbase?
Is there additional risk (beyond crypto prices dropping) like Coinbase deciding to simply close accounts in order to get funds in times of trouble due to the stock market acting up?
Would private wallets become more advisable?
Is there additional risk (beyond crypto prices dropping) like Coinbase deciding to simply close accounts in order to get funds in times of trouble due to the stock market acting up?
Would private wallets become more advisable?
That doesn't make sense and isn't how the stock market works
Stock prices dropping effect companies only indirectly, in that it may make it harder to secure loans or raise capital through issuing shares
Stock prices dropping effect companies only indirectly, in that it may make it harder to secure loans or raise capital through issuing shares
Regardless of current or future happenings with Coinbase, a private wallet is always advisable.
If you don't own the keys, you don't own the coins.
If you don't own the keys, you don't own the coins.
They should focus on eng foundations.
Frontent is nice and all but I've had double charges, frequent overloaded servers and an account lockout experience.
For a company that charges hefty fees like they do that's unacceptable.
Venting here. Sure, ipo will be great.
Frontent is nice and all but I've had double charges, frequent overloaded servers and an account lockout experience.
For a company that charges hefty fees like they do that's unacceptable.
Venting here. Sure, ipo will be great.
Does anyone know how long these kinds of reviews last until passed? Getting into this will be a bloodbath, and I wonder if it'll be with or without notice.
LOL
Isn't the whole point of cryptocurrency to produce an alternative to the current financial system?
Coinbase entering the traditional stock-market is a flat-out rejection of that; They're just another bank, except they trade in ponzi schemes rather than government-backed currency. Awful
Coinbase entering the traditional stock-market is a flat-out rejection of that; They're just another bank, except they trade in ponzi schemes rather than government-backed currency. Awful
I mean, Coinbase offers a service to customers. Sure the service is selling cryptocurrency but that's beside the point. Just because Levi's sold jeans to gold-rushers doesn't mean they had to believe there was gold. Just selling a service/product to those who do believe.
> LOL Isn't the whole point of cryptocurrency to produce an alternative to the current financial system?
Coinbase is basically a bridge between traditional and decentralized finance.
> Coinbase entering the traditional stock-market is a flat-out rejection of that; They're just another bank, except they trade in ponzi schemes rather than government-backed currency. Awful
My guess is they debated internally whether to do an IEO but ultimately decided it was not worth the regulatory risk.
Coinbase is basically a bridge between traditional and decentralized finance.
> Coinbase entering the traditional stock-market is a flat-out rejection of that; They're just another bank, except they trade in ponzi schemes rather than government-backed currency. Awful
My guess is they debated internally whether to do an IEO but ultimately decided it was not worth the regulatory risk.
Coinbase customers aren't just the consumers, but the investors that expected a market entry for return. They are adding more of those customers as well.
Cryptocurrency is more an alternative to banking, Coinbase is like a bank but more like a wallet collection and connector from currency to other digital currency. Some see it as securities/speculation as well including the IRS.
Part of the reason they are going into the market is big money returns but another is normalizing digital currency as part of the overall market, it also helps with marketing to new users that would never trust it previously, new channels. No doubt it will affect some of what happens as regulations come down, they are inevitable as money/market caps grow in anything.
Cryptocurrency is more an alternative to banking, Coinbase is like a bank but more like a wallet collection and connector from currency to other digital currency. Some see it as securities/speculation as well including the IRS.
Part of the reason they are going into the market is big money returns but another is normalizing digital currency as part of the overall market, it also helps with marketing to new users that would never trust it previously, new channels. No doubt it will affect some of what happens as regulations come down, they are inevitable as money/market caps grow in anything.
The big difference is that you are able to deliver Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to your own wallet, after which Coinbase loses control of it.
Who controls your money after you withdraw it from a traditional bank?
Traditional banks have lots restrictions _when_ you want to withdraw cash. Try moving more than $10000 between borders of countries that are not friendly with eachother, and you'll find those restrictions. You can travel with a hundred million dollars of BTC in your head (or a hardware wallet) and meet up random people if you want to buy something with it.
As an example Michael Saylor could change aegentin peso to USD in an argentin bank ($1M), but the surprise came when he wanted to move it to US.
As an example Michael Saylor could change aegentin peso to USD in an argentin bank ($1M), but the surprise came when he wanted to move it to US.
Got it. You didn't clarify in your OP. The only issue w/BTC is its volatility, usability and its (in)ability to liquidate it as widely as other currencies... other than that, it's great ;)
It's right now great as a long term store of value. To get to other functions, it needs to grow up first...it's still just a teenager.
Yup but coinbase and binance regularly stop trading to stop pumps in the crypto market. The thing is in crypto there’s DEXs and DEFI. Coinbase and binance are doomed long term. If you haven’t look into uniswap and 1inch.
Can you use uniswap or 1inch as a fiat onramp?
No and this is a problem. My own personal opinion is that once enough value is ramped then it grows and grows. I think once you see payroll in crypto at a Fortune 500 it’ll be a truly transitory moment.
I do not believe there are currently any dencentralized onramps for exchanging fiat for any crypto directly. Though I would wager this is an issue with banks not supporting smart contracts in a way that would allow automated withdrawals and deposits from/to the crypto networks.
Coinbase is the future of finance.
Monero (and other privacy coins) are the future of DeFi.
Monero (and other privacy coins) are the future of DeFi.
Coinbases only future is irrelevance then acquisition.
Shows how much they trust what they're selling I guess.
If BTC and ETH are just a replacement for visa and mastercard, they've done a good job, in that they've driven visa and mastercard to be so fast and cheap that it's essentially impossible for any blockchain based solution to be faster or cheaper per transaction.
Heck, my visa card pays me 0.3% nowadays.
So what's the purpose of crypto if it's centralized by a company like coinbase that's regulated by the SEC and all other US law ?
I'm not trying to be a crazy anarcho libertarian here, I'm just saying that the only person for which crypto makes sense is fundamentally, in this day and age, and anarchist or libertarian, or both.
But either of those are not holding crypto with a company that wants to be listed on a public us exchange... so who is !?
If BTC and ETH are just a replacement for visa and mastercard, they've done a good job, in that they've driven visa and mastercard to be so fast and cheap that it's essentially impossible for any blockchain based solution to be faster or cheaper per transaction.
Heck, my visa card pays me 0.3% nowadays.
So what's the purpose of crypto if it's centralized by a company like coinbase that's regulated by the SEC and all other US law ?
I'm not trying to be a crazy anarcho libertarian here, I'm just saying that the only person for which crypto makes sense is fundamentally, in this day and age, and anarchist or libertarian, or both.
But either of those are not holding crypto with a company that wants to be listed on a public us exchange... so who is !?
> Heck, my visa card pays me 0.3% nowadays.
Does your visa pay the merchants too? If banks/cards are are still charging merchants 2-3%, then some of that is passed on to us users as well (just not explicitly)
Does your visa pay the merchants too? If banks/cards are are still charging merchants 2-3%, then some of that is passed on to us users as well (just not explicitly)
That is true, and you are right on this front.
That being said, I do have a business accepting card payments and the 2-3% for me is closer to 0.1% past bank fees.
But you're right that from the merchant's perspective, depending on country (e.g. the US) things can be worst.
Then again, from the merchant's perspective cryptos seem to have much larger downsides, after all there's a reason why they aren't widely used, and lack of good supplied for crypto is larger than lack of people willing to use them.
That being said, I do have a business accepting card payments and the 2-3% for me is closer to 0.1% past bank fees.
But you're right that from the merchant's perspective, depending on country (e.g. the US) things can be worst.
Then again, from the merchant's perspective cryptos seem to have much larger downsides, after all there's a reason why they aren't widely used, and lack of good supplied for crypto is larger than lack of people willing to use them.
> That being said, I do have a business accepting card payments and the 2-3% for me is closer to 0.1% past bank fees.
Are you saying that you only pay 0.1% in fees for accepting credit cards? Is this in the US? If so, please tell me whom because that's an insanely good deal, and they are surely losing money.
Some other pieces you aren't including - credit cards are prone to fraud. Despite paying 2-3% in fees to banks, merchants have to build systems to limit this, and pay to refund any fraudulent charges. Crypto allows for a basically instant settlement that looks very much like a cash transaction.
Are you saying that you only pay 0.1% in fees for accepting credit cards? Is this in the US? If so, please tell me whom because that's an insanely good deal, and they are surely losing money.
Some other pieces you aren't including - credit cards are prone to fraud. Despite paying 2-3% in fees to banks, merchants have to build systems to limit this, and pay to refund any fraudulent charges. Crypto allows for a basically instant settlement that looks very much like a cash transaction.
> Crypto allows for a basically instant settlement that looks very much like a cash transaction.
Which customers don't want. Customers like paying by credit card because they know that if your product/service was fake, the credit card company will make sure they get their money back.
Which customers don't want. Customers like paying by credit card because they know that if your product/service was fake, the credit card company will make sure they get their money back.
*some customers don't want.
I personally would love to have the option in return for a portion of the 2-3% + fraud fees.
I personally would love to have the option in return for a portion of the 2-3% + fraud fees.
[deleted]
They will be correlated with BTC/USD
Nope, I doubt it. It's much easier to sell shovels and still benefit whether the price goes up or down.
At the time a lot of gold was mined in California, the gold supply increased a lot as well. With Bitcoin the supply is algorithmically limited.
Well real world gold is also limited. The California mountains used to be rich with huge veins of gold and now while you can still find some in these places it is very rare compared to the 1800's.
Trading activity can still be high regardless of new supply, and that is what Coinbase is capitalizing on.
Gold price dictates how many shovels are being sold.
Similarly BTC prices dictates gross volumes.
Similarly BTC prices dictates gross volumes.
[deleted]
We already knew this, right? What is new?
umm I am actually genuinly trying to understand what changed... I thought they already told us they are planning to do an IPO.
If you thought they were doing an IPO then this post will tell you they are planning a direct listing.
They sent a draft in December for this, so yes we knew, but now its official.
They sent a draft in December for this, so yes we knew, but now its official.
Conflating the two because I didn’t know the difference. I have never bought shares when they open because of volatility so I never pay attention!
Anyhow, thanks for the explanations.
Anyhow, thanks for the explanations.
Slightly off topic but can anyone explain to me why a massive company like coinbase uses Medium as a blogging platform/software? Why are they not hosting the blog within their own ecosystem/site?
From a technical point of view yes, your own hosted static site is way more efficient, you have more control over the stack, scaling, better metrics, security etc, etc.
From a business point of view it's more like...who the f*ck cares what you use? Did they read it? Yes? Good, move on.
From a business point of view it's more like...who the f*ck cares what you use? Did they read it? Yes? Good, move on.
> From a business point of view it's more like...
Usually companies use blogs as marketing tools to drive traffic to their websites. I might be wrong, but in the case of Coinbase I have never really seen anything they wrote that was precisely intended at selling a product. It's usually more informative, and shows they are trying to be more of a positive force in the industry compared to a dominant one. Kudos on them if it is the intent, and I guess it would explain the choice of platform instead of investing time and assets in developing their own.
Usually companies use blogs as marketing tools to drive traffic to their websites. I might be wrong, but in the case of Coinbase I have never really seen anything they wrote that was precisely intended at selling a product. It's usually more informative, and shows they are trying to be more of a positive force in the industry compared to a dominant one. Kudos on them if it is the intent, and I guess it would explain the choice of platform instead of investing time and assets in developing their own.
Sure. Because if you're a startup hiring SWEs, which are a scarce resource, why would you want them implementing something that exists and isn't part of your core business?
Also, the customer is the PR/marketing department, not the engineering department. The marketing people already know how to use these platforms well, so just let them use those.
Also, the customer is the PR/marketing department, not the engineering department. The marketing people already know how to use these platforms well, so just let them use those.
Its distracting to have extra things that engineers have to look at every once in a while. Its cheaper when accounting for employee time to just outsource random non business critical things.
Look at the dns entries for lots of big company's blogs. Many of them are just CNAMEs for wpengine or some other third party host.
Look at the dns entries for lots of big company's blogs. Many of them are just CNAMEs for wpengine or some other third party host.
I could imagine coinbase have critical cookies containing user sessions attached to coinbase.com.
If they have a wordpress blog at blog.coinbase.com, then any xss attack in wordpress can steal customer accounts.
Sure, it's a fixable problem (by moving high security cookies into login.coinbase.com or something similar), but that's a big migration, and probably nowhere near the top of the engineering priority list.
If they have a wordpress blog at blog.coinbase.com, then any xss attack in wordpress can steal customer accounts.
Sure, it's a fixable problem (by moving high security cookies into login.coinbase.com or something similar), but that's a big migration, and probably nowhere near the top of the engineering priority list.
So instead they point the domain at Medium and any XSS attack on Medium can steal their customer accounts.
I highly doubt either WordPress or Medium are susceptible to an XSS attack, but if I had to bet on one being safer I would bet on the open source software already used to power thousands of high profile websites.
I highly doubt either WordPress or Medium are susceptible to an XSS attack, but if I had to bet on one being safer I would bet on the open source software already used to power thousands of high profile websites.
The vast majority of the population is not at all like HN readers and doesn't even know what Coinbase is. Blogging on Medium gives them much better exposure and reach to non-crypto people who might become interested in them because it popped up on their Medium feed vs. on the Coinbase blog.
>doesn't even know what Coinbase is.
I kinda wonder about that. I've been INUNDATED by Coinbase advertisements on mobile apps and etc talking about incentives for learning what they do and etc.
They seem to really be pushing to get the general public on board.
I kinda wonder about that. I've been INUNDATED by Coinbase advertisements on mobile apps and etc talking about incentives for learning what they do and etc.
They seem to really be pushing to get the general public on board.
Perhaps true, but conversely you could also argue that the sheer number of scams and frauds in the Cryptocurrency space that had medium blogs might also put people off!
The vast majority of the population has a Medium feed?
Because a16z led funding rounds for both Coinbase and Medium.
Because blogging platforms are not their core competency, so it's worth outsourcing however big you are, and medium offers a better service than any alternative?
why would you spend engineering time on your blog when you can get something off the shelf / outsource it?
the opportunity cost is too high.
the opportunity cost is too high.
Same reason companies use Twitter and Facebook.
Possible reasons:
1. Allocation of engineering effort
2. Familiarity with readers
3. Discoverability
1. Allocation of engineering effort
2. Familiarity with readers
3. Discoverability
The usual alternative is Wordpress.
Which, honestly, is frequently deployed so poorly that it becomes an attack vector.
Which, honestly, is frequently deployed so poorly that it becomes an attack vector.
Trendiness.
If they were smart, they'd price it like at 2 dollars a share
Don't forget - This company actively removed employees who were willing to stand up against societal ills.*
*Yes I know this makes some people like them more.
*Yes I know this makes some people like them more.
From what I recall, it's more like they said they aren't going to take public stands on divisive political issues, and they offered generous separation packages to anyone who had a problem with that. No one was discouraged against getting politically active on their own time, and no one was "removed".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp...
As someone who has never lived in the bay area, it was kind of surreal to see employees expecting their company to get involved in amplifying their own personal political preferences. I've always been reasonably politically active, and had fairly liberal coworkers who, even if not politically active, at least believe similarly. I've always thought that work hours are for working though, and political activism has always seemed like more of an "after hours" activity.
It's nice when a company says they're in support of one thing or another, but it doesn't really mean anything without human boots on the ground willing to put in the work to make positive change happen. Corporate PR press releases always seemed really insincere anyway, so I don't get why people would be upset when some company decides that they're not going to do them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp...
As someone who has never lived in the bay area, it was kind of surreal to see employees expecting their company to get involved in amplifying their own personal political preferences. I've always been reasonably politically active, and had fairly liberal coworkers who, even if not politically active, at least believe similarly. I've always thought that work hours are for working though, and political activism has always seemed like more of an "after hours" activity.
It's nice when a company says they're in support of one thing or another, but it doesn't really mean anything without human boots on the ground willing to put in the work to make positive change happen. Corporate PR press releases always seemed really insincere anyway, so I don't get why people would be upset when some company decides that they're not going to do them.
What are the odds of this.
The cofounder of reddit, Alexis Ohanian, owns a capital firm called Initialized Capital. That firm owns coinbase.
https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-announces-proposed-direct...
The cofounder of reddit, Alexis Ohanian, owns a capital firm called Initialized Capital. That firm owns coinbase.
https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-announces-proposed-direct...