Me: "I haven't been advocating for purchasing the stock. I don't own it."
You: "It’s a good idea not to own a stock if you can’t read the income statement."
I figured it out! It's your reading comprehension! I was wondering why I had to repeat myself so much in this thread, and why you had been trailing off on tangents away from each point you attempted to pivot around. While ignoring each of your previous statements.
>The loss is nearly as large as their entire revenue
Their initial claim is "Coinbase is piling up losses, it will eventually be bankrupt, and executives will have accumulated billions while customers will lose billions." And saying this is "stealing" from customers.
I haven't been advocating for purchasing the stock. I don't own it.
Regardless, looks like they had positive net income in 2020 & 2021. Coinbase isn't the only business dealing with losses 2022. I still very much disagree with "piling up losses... eventually be bankrupt"
> They get their already-paid dividends or proceeds of what they already sold.
More irrelevant commentary.... COIN doesn't have dividends, and.... yes.... when you sell the stock.... you are no longer a shareholder.... this needed to be said?
> None of them have lost a cent.
Again.... look up the current events. Just today the Treasury secretary said that additional bank failures won't get the special treatment the big depositors got at the failed banks. They should NOT have been insured above 250k.
In your words, you might say the bank STOLE the money from depositors, and the government reimbursed special depositors for their loses. It was NOT stolen, though. The bank was mismanaged. The government should not have covered the loses above 250k per depositor. The big depositors took a risk keeping that much money there.
I doubt common shareholders would get anything at all in a case of bankruptcy.
> the unsecured creditors think they're first in line (bank depositors)
Coinbase isn't a bank, and customers' digital assets aren't bank deposits.
> that sounds like stealing to me!
Welp... You're wrong!
As for real banks, feel free to look up current events on "uninsured deposits" at regional banks. You might say banks are "stealing" deposits from accounts >$250k too!
>> “Somehow you extrapolate this to ‘all exchanges’”
>You just told me the other exchanges are worse.
pardon me....? Other non-public companies have executives selling stock?
> At the rate Coinbase is piling up losses
Feel free to cite your source.
> Oh, so you agree with me that nobody should use crypto exchanges in the first place. Because they will lose your money.
No, I don't. You buy it on an exchange, and then move it on-chain. Done. That's the point of a centralized exchange with banking connections. You are welcome to leave it there if you'd like, but you have to accept the risks. Go ahead, try to move the goal posts again.
Every comment you make more irrelevant and false points.
> When Coinbase files for bankruptcy, crypto deposits will be at the back of the line. They are unsecured creditors.
I'm aware. This has nothing to do with your point about "stealing" deposits like other exchanges (e.g. FTX), and is irrelevant to stock-based compensation. It contributes nothing to the discussion. More noise to encourage others to feel safe that their bias is well liked.
> Coinbase executives will have enjoyed years of massive pay days selling stock
More irrelevant and false points. The company has only been public since April 2021. Not even two years. You are attempting to frame them as fat cat wall street types purposefully driving the company into the ground at customers' expense.
Somehow you extrapolate this to "all exchanges" when Coinbase is the only publicly-traded exchange.
remember that Coinbase was audited by the SEC before going public, and is one of the oldest exchanges. If any exchange is safe, it's Coinbase. The problem is the SEC doesn't give clear direction.
Anybody that feels the SEC will "protect" them by forcing coinbase into bankruptcy is welcome to move their assets on-chain. Many people advocate for that.
Again, I'm highlighting how lazy and absurd your argument is.
The Wells notice has nothing to do with their banking connections.
Edit: the parent comment previously made the claim that this was predicted by various unrelated claims in a linked blog post, and later modified it to make it appear they were not making that association.
> The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds.
> like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money
I really wish people put more effort into arguing their side in these discussions. Your point is absurd and lazy.
[public company] pays some % of employee salary in stock >> while "losing money" >> ??? >> customer's property is stolen.
> Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures
FTX's problems were amplified by being unregulated, outside the US. The overwhelming majority were not US residents. The SEC didn't have jurisdiction over their International firm. The US version of FTX was handled very differently, but supposedly co-mingled funds. They FAILED to protect US residents by not shutting down the US version. They could have gave warnings about the international firm, instead of working so closely with FTX's founder.
As usual, lots of hand-waving from crypto detractors. You have a clear bias. Sadly, when enough people share a bias, truth and facts are irrelevant. There's a lot to criticize about in crypto. No need to make up irrelevant associations.
> Evals is a framework for evaluating OpenAI models and an open-source registry of benchmarks.
Is the purpose to know which of the models OpenAI offers is most suitable for your workload/app? Could I use this to know if the cheaper model is sufficient for a particular use-case?
Whether or not they make the mistake isn't the point. If they were encouraged by a specific entity to treat it as an investment, then the blame should be placed on that entity. Regulations should be put in place to prevent that (I suspect they already are). Otherwise, they have to take the L.
I expect banks and home builders are careful with how they communicate with customers.
It's less about placing fault on the purchaser. It's more that there is no one else to blame. Never-ending bail-outs only hurt future generations. I wish I went into deep debt to buy a house a lot sooner. I didn't because I knew I couldn't afford it.
Is it really anyone's fault but their own? I don't recall housing being offered as a low/no-risk investment with guaranteed profits. Financial blogs, podcasts, and Reddit commenters might have shared that view.
Are there any examples of mortgage issuers or home builders advertising housing as an investment?
I could ask the same of your original comment. Seems you like hand-waving at grants, and letting the reader come to a conclusion as a way of suggesting there's something nefarious happening. You don't like it when it's used elsewhere.
Typical divisive comment to stir the pot. It could even suggest you are being paid by an enemy of the US to disrupt or discourage/encourage discussion on particular topics. Of course, I'll use your tactic, and not provide any further information on this. I'll leave it up to the reader to wonder.
> blatant USG propaganda
All in the eye of the beholder. Which was your goal of your ambiguous hand-waving.
Roads and bridges were funded by the US government. Really makes you think, huh?!
You: "It’s a good idea not to own a stock if you can’t read the income statement."
I figured it out! It's your reading comprehension! I was wondering why I had to repeat myself so much in this thread, and why you had been trailing off on tangents away from each point you attempted to pivot around. While ignoring each of your previous statements.
I hope you can sort that out. Wish you the best.