Coinbase cuts staff by a further 20%(coinbase.com)
coinbase.com
Coinbase cuts staff by a further 20%
https://www.coinbase.com/blog/a-message-from-ceo-and-co-founder-brian-armstrong-to-coinbase-employees
531 comments
>Coinbase is a weird company, because it's got such an obvious comparable: CME Group. CME Group has about 3500 employees, [...] Firstly, I don't see how Coinbase needs as many people as CME.
Coinbase isn't a direct comparable to CME because CME only does the exchange function.
Coinbase combines several different types of financial institutions in the crypto space:
+ exchange : order matching engine of buy & sell -- analogous to NYSE/NASDAQ/CME
+ broker : custodian of customers' margin accounts -- like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc
+ bank : digital wallet and loans with customers' crypto as collateral -- like JP Morgan, Bank of America
+ ecommerce payments : analogous to PayPal/VISA/MC
Even though CME deals with trading corn commodities, it is not a bank for people to use corn as collateral. Therefore a corn farmer can't go to the CME and get a loan and pay it back when he sells his crop harvest.
Regardless of all the various financial areas they're in, Coinbase got overstaffed (like many other tech companies overhired) and so they're making aggressive cuts.
Coinbase isn't a direct comparable to CME because CME only does the exchange function.
Coinbase combines several different types of financial institutions in the crypto space:
+ exchange : order matching engine of buy & sell -- analogous to NYSE/NASDAQ/CME
+ broker : custodian of customers' margin accounts -- like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc
+ bank : digital wallet and loans with customers' crypto as collateral -- like JP Morgan, Bank of America
+ ecommerce payments : analogous to PayPal/VISA/MC
Even though CME deals with trading corn commodities, it is not a bank for people to use corn as collateral. Therefore a corn farmer can't go to the CME and get a loan and pay it back when he sells his crop harvest.
Regardless of all the various financial areas they're in, Coinbase got overstaffed (like many other tech companies overhired) and so they're making aggressive cuts.
CME isn't just "corn commodities"; they're CME, CBOT, NYMEX and COMEX, and they're a clearinghouse, they operate an electronic trading system, they're a colo provider, and a minter of new derivative products like S&P futures and SOFR. I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of other things. They probably have much more code than Coinbase. It's not all code you'd want to work on, but, from passing experience, there is a lot of it.
>CME isn't just "corn commodities";
Yes, I understand that and I wasn't dismissing CME as a simple platform. I used to work across the street from the CME and saw the traders walking around in their yellow jackets every day. The "corn" was only one example to tie it to a bank services scenario.
>, and a minter of new derivative products like S&P futures
I think Coinbase recently offered something similar: https://www.google.com/search?q=Coinbase+launches+Derivative...
Somehow, the wordsmithing in my comment got misconstrued as being dismissive of CME as being too simple and praising Coinbase as being complex.
Yes, I understand that and I wasn't dismissing CME as a simple platform. I used to work across the street from the CME and saw the traders walking around in their yellow jackets every day. The "corn" was only one example to tie it to a bank services scenario.
>, and a minter of new derivative products like S&P futures
I think Coinbase recently offered something similar: https://www.google.com/search?q=Coinbase+launches+Derivative...
Somehow, the wordsmithing in my comment got misconstrued as being dismissive of CME as being too simple and praising Coinbase as being complex.
It's not that it's dismissive (though the corn thing was a bit much) so much as that it's probably wrong. CME is mostly a tech company, and they do a lot of stuff.
>(though the corn thing was a bit much) so much as that it's probably wrong.
I was trying to convey that a farmer can't get a loan from the CME to finance his seeds/fertilizer/etc and use his corn crops as collateral. What is factually incorrect about that?
Coinbase and CME have obvious overlaps, but they also have massive financial functions where they don't. That's what the corn bank loan example was trying to highlight.
EDIT to reply: >The assertion is that Coinbase has more work to do and thus more need for headcount than CME. I dispute that.
Sorry for the misunderstanding! I never intended to convince people that Coinbase needs more employees than CME. I should have put a disclaimer in my original comment such as "Coinbase may only need 1/10th the number of CME employees but as fyi, Coinbase is not a direct comparable to CME..."
I was trying to convey that a farmer can't get a loan from the CME to finance his seeds/fertilizer/etc and use his corn crops as collateral. What is factually incorrect about that?
Coinbase and CME have obvious overlaps, but they also have massive financial functions where they don't. That's what the corn bank loan example was trying to highlight.
EDIT to reply: >The assertion is that Coinbase has more work to do and thus more need for headcount than CME. I dispute that.
Sorry for the misunderstanding! I never intended to convince people that Coinbase needs more employees than CME. I should have put a disclaimer in my original comment such as "Coinbase may only need 1/10th the number of CME employees but as fyi, Coinbase is not a direct comparable to CME..."
The assertion is that Coinbase has more work to do and thus more need for headcount than CME. I dispute that. That's all.
The "colo provider" role is just rent collection from HFT customers. It's 100% derived from their exchange business.
It's an interesting idea, but don't think you can segregate their exchange role from their authorship or standardization of financial instruments. Any exchange is either creating products to trade or licensing them. Any commodity exchange is naturally interested in setting contract standards related to delivery and quality.
They are an exchange, through and through. Everything else is a side project in support of that one role.
It's an interesting idea, but don't think you can segregate their exchange role from their authorship or standardization of financial instruments. Any exchange is either creating products to trade or licensing them. Any commodity exchange is naturally interested in setting contract standards related to delivery and quality.
They are an exchange, through and through. Everything else is a side project in support of that one role.
It is indeed 100% derived from their exchange business. It is also a colo operation. I'm not making a moral argument, but rather a practical one.
On the other hand, the regulatory requirements on CME are FAR greater and the requirements on their exchange technology are drastically greater as well.
CME also has to build risk and margining technology since its customers are generally managing complex derivatives portfolios and CME has to understand what risk those portfolios have under all sorts of tail market events.
CME also has to build risk and margining technology since its customers are generally managing complex derivatives portfolios and CME has to understand what risk those portfolios have under all sorts of tail market events.
> >Coinbase is a weird company, because it's got such an obvious comparable: CME Group. CME Group has about 3500 employees, [...] Firstly, I don't see how Coinbase needs as many people as CME.
> Coinbase isn't a direct comparable to CME because CME only does the exchange function.
> Coinbase combines several different types of financial institutions in the crypto space:
> + exchange : order matching engine of buy & sell -- analogous to NYSE/NASDAQ/CME
> + broker : custodian of customers' margin accounts -- like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc
> + bank : digital wallet and loans with customers' crypto as collateral -- like JP Morgan, Bank of America
> + ecommerce payments : analogous to PayPal/VISA/MC
> Even though CME deals with trading corn commodities, it is not a bank for people to use corn as collateral. Therefore a corn farmer can't go to the CME and get a loan and pay it back when he sells his crop harvest.
> Regardless of all the various financial areas they're in, Coinbase got overstaffed (like many other tech companies overhired) and so they're making aggressive cuts.
So maybe Coinbase should only keep profitable parts and cut/restructure/sell parts that aren't, instead of burning all their revenue in hope of capturing the market?
> Coinbase isn't a direct comparable to CME because CME only does the exchange function.
> Coinbase combines several different types of financial institutions in the crypto space:
> + exchange : order matching engine of buy & sell -- analogous to NYSE/NASDAQ/CME
> + broker : custodian of customers' margin accounts -- like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc
> + bank : digital wallet and loans with customers' crypto as collateral -- like JP Morgan, Bank of America
> + ecommerce payments : analogous to PayPal/VISA/MC
> Even though CME deals with trading corn commodities, it is not a bank for people to use corn as collateral. Therefore a corn farmer can't go to the CME and get a loan and pay it back when he sells his crop harvest.
> Regardless of all the various financial areas they're in, Coinbase got overstaffed (like many other tech companies overhired) and so they're making aggressive cuts.
So maybe Coinbase should only keep profitable parts and cut/restructure/sell parts that aren't, instead of burning all their revenue in hope of capturing the market?
Coinbase doesn't offer margin.
The AML stuff is expensive even for the investment industry which unlike crypto, isn't perfectly catered to hackers, scammers and money launderers. I'm guessing AML and support is big a cost area for COIN. This is just speculation as i don't have time to read their public papers.
Take a look at the Coinbase Subreddit to see how many suckers are getting hacked, scammed, locked out for AML reasons on any given day and getting their lawyers to write legal threats to Coinbase. Responding to this all costs money and it's where the Binance model of avoiding AML responsibilities and hiring outside US is superior (until it isn't, when execs end up in a US prison).
Take a look at the Coinbase Subreddit to see how many suckers are getting hacked, scammed, locked out for AML reasons on any given day and getting their lawyers to write legal threats to Coinbase. Responding to this all costs money and it's where the Binance model of avoiding AML responsibilities and hiring outside US is superior (until it isn't, when execs end up in a US prison).
Support/compliance officers do not need to be American even for American banks as far as I can tel. Based on a cursory glance at some identity verification companies I don’t think they’re paying more than $1 per selfie and document verification. Chainalysis is probably where things get expensive (probably high 7 figures a year) + I think the government just recently forced them to buy some new compliance tools as part of a settlement. But yes, the Binance model and allowing countries seen as risky does allow them to get substantially more volume.
If any startups want to put me on payroll just to increase their headcount for the purpose of raising more funding I'll happily take the money.
You missed the boat on that by a year.
What we should all be asking ourselves is “am I on payroll at my current job to act as ballast?”
What we should all be asking ourselves is “am I on payroll at my current job to act as ballast?”
What does it mean to act as a ballast? What are some signs? Is there a general terminology for this? Are you talking about "meat-shield headcounts"
Do you work in a cost centre or a profit centre for the business?
I caught that boat and and was pumped overboard. But I think I was bilge water more than ballast.
You mean you'll take the risk of having 50% of your comp be near worthless versus getting more liquid comp from an existing public company?
Problem is that you'll have to support and maintain a brittle, over-engineered mess and then find creative ways to further over-engineer otherwise-simple solutions to create busywork for yourself and others.
> They're meant to be a disruptive start up they should be lean.
When has this ever been a thing? They raised tons of money in huge valuations and used it to hire a boatload of people. Tale as old as time.
Agree with the rest of your post though, it’s unclear what their endgame was/is to get into the black.
When has this ever been a thing? They raised tons of money in huge valuations and used it to hire a boatload of people. Tale as old as time.
Agree with the rest of your post though, it’s unclear what their endgame was/is to get into the black.
And it all makes a certain kind of sense, in a twisted way, when you realize that they owe it to the investors that they spend what they raised. Investors don't give money to pave a seemingly infinite runway, they give money because they want to see that money put to work. An army of employees enthusiastically throwing unrelated stuff at random walls would be one of the least bad possible outcomes, because an army of focused inefficiency is so much worse, so much more likely and so much harder to recover from. Occasionally someone seems to notice and try correcing course, by burning off excess funding through the emergency vent of a ridiculously lavish ad campaign. Remember that time when almost everyone made fun of those Peloton ad interiors?
There was a lot of hype and an expectation (IMO wishful thinking) that NFTs would have a very broad penetration in the society, for example replace physical collectibles. If that did turn out to be true, most people would require a lot of handholding for taxes, complex global regulation, etc. which the Coinbase would provide, as well as collecting the exchange fees.
Under this premise it is reasonable to hire up to build this framework if the investors are willing to foot the bill during the discovery phase. I am not saying this is prudent, just that it is a consistent story that they sold.
This is not unique to crypto: biotech startups are raising billions a pop in a Series B (not a joke) promising to use generative AI to find miracle drugs.
Under this premise it is reasonable to hire up to build this framework if the investors are willing to foot the bill during the discovery phase. I am not saying this is prudent, just that it is a consistent story that they sold.
This is not unique to crypto: biotech startups are raising billions a pop in a Series B (not a joke) promising to use generative AI to find miracle drugs.
> for example replace physical collectibles
But that is crazy. It is not that hard to understand the collectibles business is emotion based. You tickle the soul of the customers just the right way so they want to own a hoard of your crap. Then you create an artificial scarcity to profit from, and a thin veneer of "but-it-is-not-a-waste-of-money-because-i-can-sell-it-later" feeling to make your customers not instantly regret the transaction.
I understand that an NFT might do some of it, but to replace all the physical collectibles? Are rich businessman going to parade around wearing NFTs on their wrists? Crazy. :D
But that is crazy. It is not that hard to understand the collectibles business is emotion based. You tickle the soul of the customers just the right way so they want to own a hoard of your crap. Then you create an artificial scarcity to profit from, and a thin veneer of "but-it-is-not-a-waste-of-money-because-i-can-sell-it-later" feeling to make your customers not instantly regret the transaction.
I understand that an NFT might do some of it, but to replace all the physical collectibles? Are rich businessman going to parade around wearing NFTs on their wrists? Crazy. :D
>Are rich businessman going to parade around wearing NFTs on their wrists?
I know several people (some of whom could even be considered businessmen) who do exactly that.
I know several people (some of whom could even be considered businessmen) who do exactly that.
I am not arguing with this, just pointing a narrative I heard many times from otherwise sane people. While I had to work hard not to roll my eyes, the story must have enough converts to pull in some serious money.
Oh sure! I believe you 100%. I should have been clearer: I'm disagreeing with people you are describing, not with your description of people of such belief.
All for some low-effort monkey JPEGs. Lol.
Two issues here with the comparison. First Coinbase isn't just an exchange in the sense that the CME is an exchange. Coinbase is an exchange, a clearinghouse, a custodian, a broker dealer, a prime brokerage, and a user platform. When you want to trade on CME, you don't just go to CME dot com, open an account with them, and have them hold your money. There's layers of other service providers, with CME itself basically being a B2B platform that also offloads much of the banking and custody to other institutions.
Second, Coinbase has ambitions beyond just being an exchange and that's driven a lot of hires. It runs Coinbase Ventures, Coinbase Cloud, an NFT platform, develops tooling (e.g. Coinbase Wallet), and contributes to crypto protocols. A lot of the recent hiring was driven by these "other bets".
Second, Coinbase has ambitions beyond just being an exchange and that's driven a lot of hires. It runs Coinbase Ventures, Coinbase Cloud, an NFT platform, develops tooling (e.g. Coinbase Wallet), and contributes to crypto protocols. A lot of the recent hiring was driven by these "other bets".
Do you mean CME as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange? That's an exchange that deals with 10s of thousands of securities and derivatives, coinbase only deals with a handful of coins. On the other hand coinbase is also broker, which operates not just in the US but in dozens of countries, with KYC on every customer, lots of different regulators, etc. Not that much comparable I would think.
>Coinbase loses $1 for every $1 of revenue.
Huh, I would call that ~$2 lost for every $1 of revenue.
Huh, I would call that ~$2 lost for every $1 of revenue.
They spend $2 for every $1 of revenue. That means they lose $1 for every $1 of revenue.
Spend is loss. If they lost $1 for every $1 of revenue, they’d be breaking even. But they aren’t. They‘d have to double their revenue just to break even.
So yes, they lose $2 for every $1 earned.
So yes, they lose $2 for every $1 earned.
> Spend is loss.
Incorrect from a definition perspective:
spend = expenditure
loss = revenue - expenditure, where expenditure > revenue
If I spent $10 to make & market a fancy x-mas box, but only sold it for $5, I didn't lose $10. I lost $5 ($5 - $10 = -$5).
To get to a net income loss of $550 mil from a revenue of $590 mil:
Net income = Revenue - expenditure
-550 mil = 590 mil - expenditure
expenditure = 590 mil + 550 mil = 1.14 bil
The initial ratio from jsnell is correct: They spent $2 to bring in $1. They lost $1 to expenses to bring in $1.
Incorrect from a definition perspective:
spend = expenditure
loss = revenue - expenditure, where expenditure > revenue
If I spent $10 to make & market a fancy x-mas box, but only sold it for $5, I didn't lose $10. I lost $5 ($5 - $10 = -$5).
To get to a net income loss of $550 mil from a revenue of $590 mil:
Net income = Revenue - expenditure
-550 mil = 590 mil - expenditure
expenditure = 590 mil + 550 mil = 1.14 bil
The initial ratio from jsnell is correct: They spent $2 to bring in $1. They lost $1 to expenses to bring in $1.
Yes.
About profit, in their SEC fillings, seems like their long position in BTC isn't going well...
[deleted]
CME group also pays less. They aren't paying 400k for engineers.
Is there something in market-making technology (or otherwise) that sets them apart from any other modern exchange? Could they pivot into trading pork bellies (or tokens thereof)?
exchanges have been around for almost a century now, so coinbase actually has a huge disadvantage in that they have no institutional stickiness or users, exchanges are built on trust and I would not want my money being routed through them if I was a client.
old exchanges do have their own challenges [0]. I don't know if their dealing in crypto gave them any particular insights into how the broader set of technologies could enhance market-making. there is at least one major busted stock exchange blockchain project that suggests this is not trivial [1].
just scrapping the bottom of the barrel here :-), hoping that as this crypto-decade draws to a close, it was not a complete waste of time for all these people and a major distraction from more meaningful pursuits in digital technology. even if one does not participate, these pervasive hypes, whether crypto, AI don't leave anybody unaffected...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/06/london-meta...
[1] https://www.ibtimes.com/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchai...
just scrapping the bottom of the barrel here :-), hoping that as this crypto-decade draws to a close, it was not a complete waste of time for all these people and a major distraction from more meaningful pursuits in digital technology. even if one does not participate, these pervasive hypes, whether crypto, AI don't leave anybody unaffected...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/06/london-meta...
[1] https://www.ibtimes.com/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchai...
Just curious, which kind of exchanges do you mean that are 100 years young? The first stock exchange came to be >400 years ago and I guess there are currency or other exchanges that were there before.
(Sorry if I just seem to want to point out a mistake - your first sentence just sounds so specific that it just got me interested in what you mean.)
(Sorry if I just seem to want to point out a mistake - your first sentence just sounds so specific that it just got me interested in what you mean.)
There is a wide variety in ages of prominent exchanges. NYSE is one of the older ones at around 250 years, LSE is not as old but roughly 220. Some Asian exchanges are younger, Hong Kong and the Indian ones are 100-150 years old. Chinese exchanges are younger still, so is the Japanese and NASDAQ was founded in the 1970s. I am also curious as to which specific one they meant, perhaps they meant the set that were all setup around 1890s as a hundred years old.
Of course, being electronic is a later thing, as far as I know the NASDAQ was one of the first.
Of course, being electronic is a later thing, as far as I know the NASDAQ was one of the first.
should've qualified with modern exchanges, centralized companies that facilitate markets and liquidity. Older generations were more open marketplaces and in some cases literally just physical areas.
Yes- what Coinbase doesn't have is trust. They can pay all the marketing dollars they want but without any regulation or oversight they'll never have it from me.
FYI, CME outsources 101 functions, from technical connections to account management to custody and settlements that Coinbase (has to) do itself.
how is CME a good comparison? they aren’t a retail consumer facing company
a company like Coinbase needs hundreds if not thousands of support staff like a retail bank would that scales with the total active customer base.
the total number of employees doesn’t tell you how many are in a support function.
a company like Coinbase needs hundreds if not thousands of support staff like a retail bank would that scales with the total active customer base.
the total number of employees doesn’t tell you how many are in a support function.
> They're meant to be a disruptive start up
they have IPOed and insiders continue to exit as fast as possible
they have IPOed and insiders continue to exit as fast as possible
> Firstly, I don't see how Coinbase needs as many people as CME.
For one, they do much more than CME.
For one, they do much more than CME.
What do all those people even do?
My best guess is that raising funding helps raise the valuation, especially as they approach IPO. So raise money for the sake of raising the valuation.
You don’t really need the money, but you got it. What are you going to do with it to appease the investors? Well you gotta act like you are doing something with it, especially something that shows growth.
Hire more. Hire more because we imagine more. Keep imagining until imagining doesn’t work anymore. Then fire, and say sorry. Hopefully you sold enough equity at the ridiculous ipo price.
Sorry, but not sorry.
You don’t really need the money, but you got it. What are you going to do with it to appease the investors? Well you gotta act like you are doing something with it, especially something that shows growth.
Hire more. Hire more because we imagine more. Keep imagining until imagining doesn’t work anymore. Then fire, and say sorry. Hopefully you sold enough equity at the ridiculous ipo price.
Sorry, but not sorry.
I interviewed with them last year and while I didn't get the job, looking back now I'm kind of thankful it turned out how it did. From my limited perspective interviewing there, it seems like they started branching out into all things crypto.
One manager I interviewed with explained that they wanted to become the "Amazon of Crypto" where any service related to crypto such as wallets, NFT's, etc are all on Coinbase. It was clear back then to me that Coinbase wanted to dethrone both Metamask as the wallet of choice and OpenSea as the NFT marketplace of choice. You hire a ton of people for these projects but end up letting them all go when they realized those projects weren't going to pan out.
One manager I interviewed with explained that they wanted to become the "Amazon of Crypto" where any service related to crypto such as wallets, NFT's, etc are all on Coinbase. It was clear back then to me that Coinbase wanted to dethrone both Metamask as the wallet of choice and OpenSea as the NFT marketplace of choice. You hire a ton of people for these projects but end up letting them all go when they realized those projects weren't going to pan out.
> You hire a ton of people for these projects but end up letting them all go when they realized those projects weren't going to pan out.
Which is weird, because they're not especially difficult projects. OpenSea was built by like five people.
Which is weird, because they're not especially difficult projects. OpenSea was built by like five people.
It's a classic problem with big companies and software development. Say you worked for a Fortune500 company and they wanted you to build a TODO list app. The core app can be built in a week, but it ends up taking 3 months and a team of 10 engineers, why is that?
* Well we need to integrate it with our engagement platform, meetings required with engagement to determine scope and requirements.
* Well we need it to also integrate with our productivity API, another set of meeeting to determine scope of integration.
* We need deep reporting capabilities, please get with the reporting team to determine requirements.
* Also this app will need to integrate into EXISTING_TOOL_A and EXISTING_TOOL_B. App cannot be built in React and must be built in Angular with OLD_SOFTWARE_PKG_1 and OLD_SOFTWARE_PKG_2 in order for it to successfully integrate with these old apps.
* Hey we just signed a contract with CLOUD_PROVIDER_Y, we know you were using IN_HOUSE_PROVIDER_1 for your infra but now please modify the entire app to work with CLOUD_PROVIDER_Y.
* Oh and it also needs to be backwards compatible with IN_HOUSE_PROVIDER_1 because it needs to run in parallel while we onboard CLOUD_PROVIDER_Y
* Well we need to integrate it with our engagement platform, meetings required with engagement to determine scope and requirements.
* Well we need it to also integrate with our productivity API, another set of meeeting to determine scope of integration.
* We need deep reporting capabilities, please get with the reporting team to determine requirements.
* Also this app will need to integrate into EXISTING_TOOL_A and EXISTING_TOOL_B. App cannot be built in React and must be built in Angular with OLD_SOFTWARE_PKG_1 and OLD_SOFTWARE_PKG_2 in order for it to successfully integrate with these old apps.
* Hey we just signed a contract with CLOUD_PROVIDER_Y, we know you were using IN_HOUSE_PROVIDER_1 for your infra but now please modify the entire app to work with CLOUD_PROVIDER_Y.
* Oh and it also needs to be backwards compatible with IN_HOUSE_PROVIDER_1 because it needs to run in parallel while we onboard CLOUD_PROVIDER_Y
The requirements will expand too. The startup is probably not worried about ADA compliance, deep Unicode compatibility, localization (the reason why we need to be good at Unicode), complying with the backup policy, security team review, auditing requirements, immediate compliance with privacy laws in other jurisdictions (e.g., a US startup might ignore EU law right away but the Fortune500 might not want to), especially with regard to personally identifiable information, etc.
You list a lot of perfectly valid "external" things that a Fortune500 company might add, but there's also internal things that it may need immediately that a startup won't.
(The backup policy being a particularly trenchant one, in my opinion. It's not an every day thing, but we've certainly seen several stories over the years on HN of startups basically going "whoops, we accidentally the data, sorry we're shut down now because this is unrecoverable for us".)
You list a lot of perfectly valid "external" things that a Fortune500 company might add, but there's also internal things that it may need immediately that a startup won't.
(The backup policy being a particularly trenchant one, in my opinion. It's not an every day thing, but we've certainly seen several stories over the years on HN of startups basically going "whoops, we accidentally the data, sorry we're shut down now because this is unrecoverable for us".)
Presumably the difference is that those 5 people really wanted to build OpenSea, where Coinbase staff were just assigned to projects.
I agree with your sentiment and I think you would agree with this, just wanted to get it out there.
I've seen teams of 10-15 people that do absolutely nothing. Have 10 meetings about specs but space them out over a year, so that by the time the next meeting happens, everyone forgets the entire context of the project... so you have to cover everything again. By the end of year, its gone absolutely no where due to 2-3 layers of bureaucracy. Coinbase _can_ hire good talent... wonder if managing it is the/a problem.
I've seen teams of 10-15 people that do absolutely nothing. Have 10 meetings about specs but space them out over a year, so that by the time the next meeting happens, everyone forgets the entire context of the project... so you have to cover everything again. By the end of year, its gone absolutely no where due to 2-3 layers of bureaucracy. Coinbase _can_ hire good talent... wonder if managing it is the/a problem.
I've seen a large non-tech company (you probably know them) increase dev time by like 50% (plus increase defect rates) across several projects because someone inside had built an identity as "the [niche database] guy" and successfully sold [niche database] to the org (with the help of [niche database]'s marketing material) as the solution for all problems, when it was actually a pretty terrible fit for almost everything they were doing.
This dude cost them millions, for no benefit whatsoever, by causing morale-crushing slowdowns on every project. It was crazy. Wouldn't be surprised if he's running the tech-side of that whole place by now, either. They seemed to love the guy.
This dude cost them millions, for no benefit whatsoever, by causing morale-crushing slowdowns on every project. It was crazy. Wouldn't be surprised if he's running the tech-side of that whole place by now, either. They seemed to love the guy.
> Coinbase _can_ hire good talent... wonder if managing it is the/a problem.
I've worked at a company where at an individual level people were quite talented, moreso than competitors who did better than them .... but getting anything done required Y different meetings with X different teams, satisfying N different gatekeepers who just want to push their own product on you, avoid stepping on the toes of persons X,Y,Z, etc etc.
Company multiplied in size a few times over the course of a few years and had just no idea how to handle it.
I've worked at a company where at an individual level people were quite talented, moreso than competitors who did better than them .... but getting anything done required Y different meetings with X different teams, satisfying N different gatekeepers who just want to push their own product on you, avoid stepping on the toes of persons X,Y,Z, etc etc.
Company multiplied in size a few times over the course of a few years and had just no idea how to handle it.
The more people you have, the longer things take. Everyone has an opinion and you need to spend time to get people to agree on things. This compounds with XFN teams and people coming up with make work or competing for top spot for the sake of performance reviews.
Probably better to have a small team quickly ship a v1 and get everyone involved after.
Probably better to have a small team quickly ship a v1 and get everyone involved after.
Reminds me of when I worked at Altavista (the "original Google") for all of two months in late 1999. They had rolled up many companies and I was assigned to work in one of the recent acquisitions, and the manager and I met twice in that time. They asked me to get some insight into how the search operation worked. I played a lot of pool. Found out they hadn't successfully indexed the web for a while. Altavista was trying to be everything to everyone and was spending a ton on celebrity advertising (Pamela Anderson for example). I left.
I think CMGI rolled up the remnants of Altavista.
I think CMGI rolled up the remnants of Altavista.
I recently heard that a stale index was the thing that really killed AltaVista.
https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1117859464793583616
Do you have any insight into why that happened?
https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1117859464793583616
Do you have any insight into why that happened?
I feel the same way about interviewing with OpenDoor. The hiring manager was so condescending and when I didn’t get an offer I was bummed, but their stock is down like 90% since then so… yeah. “Sorry about your RSUs bro”.
I think everyone was completely caught off-guard by the ferocity and pace of the crypto drawdown.
Volumes have atrophied completely. It's not a cooling of retail interest vis-a-vis the stock market, but complete apathy and/or hatred.
See the volume data for OpenSea as an example.
Volumes have atrophied completely. It's not a cooling of retail interest vis-a-vis the stock market, but complete apathy and/or hatred.
See the volume data for OpenSea as an example.
If you were caught off-guard then you've been sitting in a massive bubble. There has been open distrust and hatred of cryptocurrencies since long before NFTs were a thing.
I would argue that NFTs did more to spread the word that cryptocurrencies are a farce than they did to create "value" for those behind them.
I would argue that NFTs did more to spread the word that cryptocurrencies are a farce than they did to create "value" for those behind them.
it's not a question of you getting caught off-guard but a massive exchange being trapped now (what do they do?) I kinda feel for them because they tried to build a legit-looking exchange business unlike the famous scams, but now they are stuck and these losses are mind-bending
I feel the same about HOOD. I own some of their stock but every time I see them announce a new crypto product, investment, team, feature etc I cringe. They have coupled themselves and the success of their non crypto products tightly to the success of crypto and I wonder if there will come a time when they try to cut out crypto or if it's too late to do so. I'm holding because I'm hoping they can swing it, but it's been tough to watch because I'm a crypto bear and always have been. I love what they've done with their equity marketplace and their new retirement product seems interesting - but so long as crypto is still around stinking up the place it's hard for me to be a consumer of theirs.
The Indian version of Robinhood - Zerodha - reported a profit of nearly $250M on revenues of $650M last year. It never raised venture funding and never sold any crypto.
Bootstrapped businesses have the best execution.
Bootstrapped businesses have the best execution.
I've seen hatred of crypto, constant insistence that it's 100% fraud, and claims that it's worthless and will collapse for many years now.
In 2019, no one was saying it would crash in 2022; they were saying it would crash in 2019 or just "it will crash eventually"
In 2020, they weren't saying it would crash in 2022, they were saying it would crash in 2020 or just "it will crash eventually"
In 2021, they weren't saying it would crash in 2022, they were saying it would crash in 2021 or just "it will crash eventually"
In 2022, they said it would crash in 2022 or just "it will crash eventually", and people who didn't realize it would actually happen in 2022 were in a bubble?
It turned out that 2022 was different, but the predictions weren't any different, which means they weren't actually meaningful predictions.
In 2019, no one was saying it would crash in 2022; they were saying it would crash in 2019 or just "it will crash eventually"
In 2020, they weren't saying it would crash in 2022, they were saying it would crash in 2020 or just "it will crash eventually"
In 2021, they weren't saying it would crash in 2022, they were saying it would crash in 2021 or just "it will crash eventually"
In 2022, they said it would crash in 2022 or just "it will crash eventually", and people who didn't realize it would actually happen in 2022 were in a bubble?
It turned out that 2022 was different, but the predictions weren't any different, which means they weren't actually meaningful predictions.
I mean, if it was easy to time when things would collapse, you could make a lot of money. But it is sometimes possible to point to something and say "that'll collapse, sooner or later, because it doesn't make any sense" where it isn't practical to predict the time of the collapse.
People started saying "yeah, there's a problem here" about the Irish property market in 2003 or so. Lots of people were saying "this will crash any day now". For years. Then between 2006 and 2010, prices halved, for broadly the reasons the doomsayers were saying (the global financial crisis was arguably a trigger, but doesn't explain the whole thing).
(Also, I would note that Bitcoin did crash in 2021, as well. And it's not like 2022 is likely to be the last crash, either).
People started saying "yeah, there's a problem here" about the Irish property market in 2003 or so. Lots of people were saying "this will crash any day now". For years. Then between 2006 and 2010, prices halved, for broadly the reasons the doomsayers were saying (the global financial crisis was arguably a trigger, but doesn't explain the whole thing).
(Also, I would note that Bitcoin did crash in 2021, as well. And it's not like 2022 is likely to be the last crash, either).
This house is garbage, it's gonna collapse. Didn't collapse last month.
Didn't collapse the next month.
Didn't collapse the next month.
Finally collapses the one after. Was it still a POS garbage house? Probably.
Didn't collapse the next month.
Didn't collapse the next month.
Finally collapses the one after. Was it still a POS garbage house? Probably.
You are intentionally mixing up 2 types of prediction and belittling the one that's a more powerful driver than "it will crash on X date".
"it will crash eventually" is more important, it results in people staying away/getting out of this market, for good. It's much more powerful than oh it's gonna crash on this or that date.
"it will crash eventually" is more important, it results in people staying away/getting out of this market, for good. It's much more powerful than oh it's gonna crash on this or that date.
To be clear, this is the thread we're in:
> > I think everyone was completely caught off-guard by the ferocity and pace of the crypto drawdown.
> If you were caught off-guard then you've been sitting in a massive bubble.
OP is saying people were caught off-guard by the specifics of the crash. That doesn't require being in a bubble, because there weren't any specific correct predictions that were distinguishable from the specific incorrect predictions.
Non-specific predictions may be useful, but they don't prevent you from being surprised by the specifics.
> > I think everyone was completely caught off-guard by the ferocity and pace of the crypto drawdown.
> If you were caught off-guard then you've been sitting in a massive bubble.
OP is saying people were caught off-guard by the specifics of the crash. That doesn't require being in a bubble, because there weren't any specific correct predictions that were distinguishable from the specific incorrect predictions.
Non-specific predictions may be useful, but they don't prevent you from being surprised by the specifics.
They are very useful when the prediction resulted in not participating in this market at all.
For those who are in this market (as Coinbase is), they are useful in terms of planning and setting up a large reserve of rainy day funds - for less risky venture it may not be necessary, but for crypto it absolutely is. Unless plan B is to crash and burn which seems to be the MO for most crypto companies.
For those who are in this market (as Coinbase is), they are useful in terms of planning and setting up a large reserve of rainy day funds - for less risky venture it may not be necessary, but for crypto it absolutely is. Unless plan B is to crash and burn which seems to be the MO for most crypto companies.
Coinbase was caught off guard because they drank the koolaid.
You know who didn't drink the koolaid? Cumberland/DRW and Jump.
You know who didn't drink the koolaid? Cumberland/DRW and Jump.
If it can prevent any buy-and-hold/long-term retail investors from putting their money into something vastly overvalued, I'd argue that "it will eventually crash" is an extremely meaningful prediction even without a precise time frame.
People were calling crypto a scam. Which is not a prediction, just an observation. Trying to market time an irrational bubble like crypto is a fool's errand.
Note that they were all saying "it would crash"
You're being way too kind to the crypto haters, who were predicting crashes in 2014, too.
HN has predicted 10 of the last two crypto crashes.
HN has predicted 10 of the last two crypto crashes.
Timing the drawdown was difficult, but the whole thing was incredibly bubbly. If there's no fundamentals, only a desire to eventually sell out to a greater fool, the drop can be hard.
Plus there's also the "Lehman Brothers moment" provided by FTX. People are learning what "counterparty risk" is. If you're not daytrading, then suddenly it's worth considering moving your crypto off the exchange and assuming the custody risk yourself.
Plus there's also the "Lehman Brothers moment" provided by FTX. People are learning what "counterparty risk" is. If you're not daytrading, then suddenly it's worth considering moving your crypto off the exchange and assuming the custody risk yourself.
Absolutely nobody paying even a drop of honest attention was surprised by any part of the crypto drawdown
This is silly hyperbole. I was paying honest attention to crypto and I was continually surprised that it didn’t crash. Eventually I gave up and stopped guessing it was going to crash. Then it did :shrug:
Obviously hindsight, but the combination of 0% interest rates and the rise of retail investing post-March 2020 was fuel that had to run out eventually.
Predicting tops/bottoms is a fools errand, however. If you thought Bitcoin was overpriced at $15,000 and see it rise to almost $70,000, only to see if fall, but not past the point where you initially thought it was overpriced -- well, hopefully you at least didn't bet on it being overpriced at $15k.
I remember thinking how crazy Tesla's price seemed to me in June/July 2020. It then proceeded to go up more than 4x that price over the next 1.5 years before falling, but TSLA is still trading ~30% higher than those June/July 2020 prices.
Predicting tops/bottoms is a fools errand, however. If you thought Bitcoin was overpriced at $15,000 and see it rise to almost $70,000, only to see if fall, but not past the point where you initially thought it was overpriced -- well, hopefully you at least didn't bet on it being overpriced at $15k.
I remember thinking how crazy Tesla's price seemed to me in June/July 2020. It then proceeded to go up more than 4x that price over the next 1.5 years before falling, but TSLA is still trading ~30% higher than those June/July 2020 prices.
Bitcoin has dropped about the same amount as Netflix, Meta and Tesla (~70-74%)
It has significantly outperformed VC darlings like Peloton (-93%) and WeWork (-90%).
You can't tell me that WeWork stock wasn't working on the greater fool theory any more than Bitcoin's price works on finding more bagholders. It's all a grift, some worse than others.
It has significantly outperformed VC darlings like Peloton (-93%) and WeWork (-90%).
You can't tell me that WeWork stock wasn't working on the greater fool theory any more than Bitcoin's price works on finding more bagholders. It's all a grift, some worse than others.
Peloton in particular was a beneficiary of the pandemic and lockdowns. With no ill will, I'm content to see their stock price drop if it is correlated with an improvement in the general state of the world.
It's absolutely not informative to compare their returns to various crypto.
It's absolutely not informative to compare their returns to various crypto.
Peloton got massively mismanaged by its ceo.
WeWork wasn’t public, and SoftBank in particular seems more than willing to be the greater fool on bets we all know are terrible.
Equity/market are down generally, and some VC companies are frauds.
That doesn’t change the fact that crypto is zero/negative sum.
That doesn’t change the fact that crypto is zero/negative sum.
Absolutely everyone was surprised by the pace of the tech meltdown. It's not everyday that "blue chip" companies like Netflix and Meta and Tesla drop 60-70% within months.
Meta crashed 73%. Tesla crashed 70%. Netflix crashed 72%.
Everyone knew it was always going to come down, but if I were to tell you in September 2021 that Meta was going to trade 70% down within a year, you wouldn't have believed me
Meta crashed 73%. Tesla crashed 70%. Netflix crashed 72%.
Everyone knew it was always going to come down, but if I were to tell you in September 2021 that Meta was going to trade 70% down within a year, you wouldn't have believed me
> if I were to tell you in September 2021 that Meta was going to trade 70% down within a year, you wouldn't have believed me
I would have probably asked "who is Meta?" at which point you explain you are a time traveler, and Facebook was to change their name in the next few months, too. After my initial laughter, I suppose I'd believe your whole story, because you can't make this stuff up. Next thing you'll tell me, Zuckerberg has legally changed his name to "The Cooler Mark".
I would have probably asked "who is Meta?" at which point you explain you are a time traveler, and Facebook was to change their name in the next few months, too. After my initial laughter, I suppose I'd believe your whole story, because you can't make this stuff up. Next thing you'll tell me, Zuckerberg has legally changed his name to "The Cooler Mark".
> but if I were to tell you in September 2021 that Meta was going to trade 70% down within a year, you wouldn't have believed me
Maybe not down 70%, but certainly down a lot due to iOS privacy changes, which are being taken up by other platforms and browsers as well.
A big chunk of the negative sentiment however can be attributed to those ridiculous metaverse demos that they've spunked $15b of cash on.
Maybe not down 70%, but certainly down a lot due to iOS privacy changes, which are being taken up by other platforms and browsers as well.
A big chunk of the negative sentiment however can be attributed to those ridiculous metaverse demos that they've spunked $15b of cash on.
You know, I really like this comment because its pretty true. I think a lot of people will say they say the signs... and I initially wanted to say that too. It happened so "slow" though and its crazy to think about how "good" it was pre-covid. I mean, things generally were going up and IMO, life felt more "stable" so a tech crash 2-3 years out just wouldn't be on the radar.
I have always said (w/comments to back it up) the $600 checks were going to cause huge issues sooner than later. I don't think its that prophetic or controversial (its basic econ) but at the time it seemed if you even suggested the idea that printing so much money was a bad idea you were seen as "hating poor people" or some other flavor of "against the common man."
Still. I can't say I would have believed you. Otherwise, I would have shorted the whole tech sector.
I have always said (w/comments to back it up) the $600 checks were going to cause huge issues sooner than later. I don't think its that prophetic or controversial (its basic econ) but at the time it seemed if you even suggested the idea that printing so much money was a bad idea you were seen as "hating poor people" or some other flavor of "against the common man."
Still. I can't say I would have believed you. Otherwise, I would have shorted the whole tech sector.
I saw the signs and I was convinced it was going to crash, and I even shorted it at 55kish. And it did crash.
Then out of the blue, for no real reason, it went up again, hitting another new high.
Point is: markets are completely irrational and predicting what they're going to do or not going to do is a futile exercise.
Then out of the blue, for no real reason, it went up again, hitting another new high.
Point is: markets are completely irrational and predicting what they're going to do or not going to do is a futile exercise.
Yea, I understand that. I actually run a trading firm but I don't do "long term" bets like that. Also exactly for that reason.
The overall tech meltdown, sure. The crypto meltdown, no, that was not surprising.
Crypto meltdown wasn't surprising simply because it went up so much, so fast that it was always going to come down.
In real terms, Bitcoin and Ethereum didn't perform any worse than most major tech stocks, and outperformed many pandemic tech stocks (Zoom, Peloton).
In real terms, Bitcoin and Ethereum didn't perform any worse than most major tech stocks, and outperformed many pandemic tech stocks (Zoom, Peloton).
Sure I would. I've been through a couple of recessions now.
I don't agree. People were aware of all of the same problems in early 2021. Is it a surprise that the momentum behind the ecosystem eventually fled once people couldn't sell to the next bagholder as easily? No. Is it a surprise that it happened in 2022? Yes. Nothing about the industry fundamentally changed between 2020/2021 (massive explosion of interest) and 2022 (collapse). In Dec 2021 there wasn't a particularly good reason to predict that the industry would collapse in 2022 instead of any other year.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I think everyone was completely caught off-guard by the ferocity and pace of the crypto drawdown.
You have to believe. Especially if you claim to be a leader.
You have to believe. Especially if you claim to be a leader.
This is no different to other tech companies and startups that have over hired during the low interest hype and have aggressively raised money. It is essentially the VC hype cycle and are meant to dump their holdings on retail once the stock is publicly listed.
We're all just see how tech startups and other companies are getting slaughtered over market conditions and NOW need to cut costs, spend less, hire less and turn a profit rather than continued losses.
The era of "Lose money for decades just like Amazon did and so can we" is over.
We're all just see how tech startups and other companies are getting slaughtered over market conditions and NOW need to cut costs, spend less, hire less and turn a profit rather than continued losses.
The era of "Lose money for decades just like Amazon did and so can we" is over.
> [...] that have over hired during the low interest hype [...]
Well, in a sense that's exactly what low interest rates were supposed to accomplish: get people in the economy to spend.
Well, in a sense that's exactly what low interest rates were supposed to accomplish: get people in the economy to spend.
Amazon was founded in 1994 and turned their first profit in 2001. A better example would be Uber, which ran negative until they had less than one year of runway remaining and then were somehow allowed to scam pedestrians into keeping their unprofitable taxi business solvent.
what do you mean by scam pedestrians?
Uber lost all of the money all of the original investors gave them, and sold that bag of dog shit to the public. Everyone who bought the IPO lost money.
classic vc growth story, almost a fairy tale.
[deleted]
Why should a company make a profit? It's all about managing cash flows.
Despite numerous wrong turns and silly mistakes, Coinbase is looking more and more as the lonely survivor positioned to dominate crypto trading in the West.
The company has lots of cash on hand in excess of corporate debt, almost no short-term corporate debt, customer assets backing all customer deposits, and as far as I can tell from a quick read of the latest quarterly report, a clean balance sheet with no red flags.
If the crypto market recovers from the latest crash, which is what has happened after all previous crashes in the past, Coinbase stands to win big.
The company has lots of cash on hand in excess of corporate debt, almost no short-term corporate debt, customer assets backing all customer deposits, and as far as I can tell from a quick read of the latest quarterly report, a clean balance sheet with no red flags.
If the crypto market recovers from the latest crash, which is what has happened after all previous crashes in the past, Coinbase stands to win big.
> Coinbase is looking more and more as the lonely survivor positioned to dominate crypto trading in the West.
Because it feels like they're the only ones that stay legit while also seeming to take security quite seriously.
Everyone else is either a scammer or gets hacked, and I'm convinced at least half of the "hacks" are inside jobs.
Because it feels like they're the only ones that stay legit while also seeming to take security quite seriously.
Everyone else is either a scammer or gets hacked, and I'm convinced at least half of the "hacks" are inside jobs.
Kraken has the same legitimacy imo.
They've already survived two crypto winters as well before this one, so they've already had experience and gotten to see what works and what doesn't, and have structured their company accordingly. I think if any crypto company deserves to survive this crypto winter, they're probably the most deserving.
I doubt their past experience applies. This is far more than a winter.
I didn't literally mean that past crypto winters lasted only as long as a physical winter. Past crypto winters have lasted as much as two years. If this lasts longer than that, sure, it can be considered worse than past ones. Currently we're just barely over a year from bitcoin's all-time-high, though.
As the other comment said, we're somewhat in uncharted territory with higher interest rates, but I don't think it will insure a longer winter. It might just keep it from getting quite as high as the ATH for a while, but I think as the rate increases slow down (and especially once they start being cut again) it will start rebounding significantly.
Also if that past experience doesn't apply, then it probably doesn't apply for any other non-crypto company that was founded since 2012 (when Coinbase was founded as well). You expecting all of them to go belly up, just because they only existed in the era of low interest rates?
As the other comment said, we're somewhat in uncharted territory with higher interest rates, but I don't think it will insure a longer winter. It might just keep it from getting quite as high as the ATH for a while, but I think as the rate increases slow down (and especially once they start being cut again) it will start rebounding significantly.
Also if that past experience doesn't apply, then it probably doesn't apply for any other non-crypto company that was founded since 2012 (when Coinbase was founded as well). You expecting all of them to go belly up, just because they only existed in the era of low interest rates?
Are there any rubes left though?
The types of people reaching out to me to explain crypto during the last boom makes me think the wells are running dry.
The types of people reaching out to me to explain crypto during the last boom makes me think the wells are running dry.
"Crypto winter" doesn't refer to the fact that half of the world is in the "winter season" climate currently but rather a time-period (traditionally lasting longer than a climate "season") when cryptocurrencies prices are at a downturn.
"winter" implies there's a forthcoming "spring". Parent is suggesting the possibility of a permanent impairment, that crypto may never "recover" to public interest and price levels seen in the last few years.
I agree, this might be a prolonged depression because the interest rates are higher.
Yes. Everything suggests they are prioritizing long-term financial stability and staying power for what could be a really long crypto winter. Many poorly thought-out, poorly executed, and brazenly fraudulent schemes must be fully washed away before the market for this technology can find its footing.
Armstrong and his top execs deserve a lot of credit for staying rational over the past few years, while execs at most other firms in the industry seemingly lost their minds and willingly threw themselves into the flames of all sorts of stupid risky schemes destined to burn violently into ash.
Armstrong and his top execs deserve a lot of credit for staying rational over the past few years, while execs at most other firms in the industry seemingly lost their minds and willingly threw themselves into the flames of all sorts of stupid risky schemes destined to burn violently into ash.
[deleted]
"Crypto Industry" only has investors. I have not seen an actual cryptocurrency user that says "I'm here to use this thing"
I've always thought this to be the case. Coinbase and Kraken will be the dominant US players (imho).
[deleted]
Yet, I have an issue with my business account and their support has ghosted me. They kept responding with form letters and I kept telling them they weren't reading my emails, then they stopped. I'm just trying to add a business debit card to a business account. I get an error message that says "business cards are not supported" and their support tells me I have a personal account. What a mess. It's been 3 weeks now.
Coinbase reputation got hit when people found out about their insider trading [1], on top of them hiring ex-wall street people
Coinbase also is 10x less volume than Binance [2]
You have all of this, then the press who keep advertise them despite the poor metrics, something doesn't sound right
I think it's fair to say people made their choice and the choice is Binance
The narative can't be forced like with other industries, unless you get help from the press and push some FUD, hmm
Or with the help of the CIA with FTX as a poison aimed at Binance, hmm
[1] - https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-charged-first-eve...
[2] - https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/
Coinbase also is 10x less volume than Binance [2]
You have all of this, then the press who keep advertise them despite the poor metrics, something doesn't sound right
I think it's fair to say people made their choice and the choice is Binance
The narative can't be forced like with other industries, unless you get help from the press and push some FUD, hmm
Or with the help of the CIA with FTX as a poison aimed at Binance, hmm
[1] - https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-charged-first-eve...
[2] - https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/
Binance can create its own volume out of thin air. This would be harder for Coinbase, due to their nature as a public company. The truth is, it's hard to know what is happening inside Binance.
That's true, but that's easy to track, as everything in the blockchain is transparent, that's how people found out about the insider trading at Coinbase
Coinbase is so well run that it will probably outlive cryptocurrency trading, at least briefly.
We should go fully decentralised for the future, with fiat/crypto done at retail scale. Unfortunately there is a huge lobby of banks and government that want to monitor people spending money to make it happen.
They literally had people with 1-2 years of experience conducting interviews last I remember. They were on an unhinged hiring spree before they ipo’d, so this was coming no matter what.
> They literally had people with 1-2 years of experience conducting interviews last I remember.
I interviewed at a place where 75% of the interviewers didn't show up.
The only dude who did, had started the day before...
I interviewed at a place where 75% of the interviewers didn't show up.
The only dude who did, had started the day before...
This sounds fascinating. What kind of software/industry?
It was at Puppet Labs.
I am a former employee of BladeLogic, and the founder of Puppet used to work there. In 2008, BladeLogic's largest customer hired me (Bank of America.)
BofA outsourced my job, so I needed somewhere to work, and I reached out to Puppet.
I had an interview schedule with four Puppet employees. 75% of them didn't show up. The one person who DID show up had started the day before my interview.
You can find me on LinkedIn, all the history is there.
I am a former employee of BladeLogic, and the founder of Puppet used to work there. In 2008, BladeLogic's largest customer hired me (Bank of America.)
BofA outsourced my job, so I needed somewhere to work, and I reached out to Puppet.
I had an interview schedule with four Puppet employees. 75% of them didn't show up. The one person who DID show up had started the day before my interview.
You can find me on LinkedIn, all the history is there.
I have friends who had the same experience for Goldman Sachs as a new grad Dev.
I spent most of the last two years working on an NFT anti-fraud solution[0].
My two prior startups were (essentially) in telecom and healthcare. Coming from these well established, highly regulated, somewhat legacy industries to "crypto"/NFTs/web3 was a very interesting experience, to say the least. Users/potential customers for our solution ranged from creators to marketplaces to collectors/investors. Several very general and broad observations:
1) The anonymous/pseudo anonymous nature of the space is bizarre. I would have multiple voice-only meetings with people using aliases and avatars for all communications. To this day I only know some people as "Mango Man" or whatever. Meeting people who could just burn down an entire identity and start fresh when things go sideways is an indicator of the nature of the space.
2) There is a general lack of "adults in the room". I would get on a call with the Founder/CEO of a marketplace or project that was valued (at least) in the > $100m range and hear and see things that were horrifying. My final breaking point was a call with the founder of a well known highly valued NFT marketplace who showed up (Tuesday morning, 10 AM) obviously high on some sort of stimulant. Within the first five minutes of the call they repeated their mantra of "I'm just trying to get made, paid, and laid" several times. They spent the remainder of the (very brief) call describing all kinds of things I'm pretty sure are illegal. On an introductory call.
3) The fraud and overall criminality is well beyond what is publicly known from FTX, Celsius, web3 is going great, etc. The most common reply regarding our solution was along the lines of "Why would we want this? We make our money on fraud". I was frequently reminded me of the scene in The Big Short when they talk to mortgage brokers and come away saying "Why are they confessing?" with the response being "They're not confessing, they're bragging".
4) Any semblance of professionalism and basic standards is generally non-existent. A HEAD OF LEGAL for a well known exchange (Superbowl commercial) would say and post things on LinkedIn that would get you terminated immediately in any other field. Daily.
5) The more technical startups/partners (infrastructure providers, etc) were generally the best to work with. However, the profiles of the founders and team were interesting - many of them had 1-2 years of junior experience at a FAANG (for better or worse).
6) VC in the space is even more wild than what has been reported in the media. I'll just leave this one at that.
7) Many people in the space seemed to just appear from nowhere. Like some of the technical founders with 1-2 years of junior experience and SBF who had a few years doing something at Jane Street I often times couldn't figure out where these people came from or why/how they were here. Of course this is common in tech (from Google to Facebook founders often "appear out of nowhere") but it was still extremely bizarre for SBF type characters to be dealing with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of other people's money with either no reputation/background or a shady one.
8) In my 25 years of experience I've never dealt with a more generally unimpressive group of people. After nearly two years in the space, meeting hundreds of people, there are only a handful I want to maintain any sort of personal or professional relationship with.
With my background I knew I would experience some culture shock (for lack of a better term) entering a space that was still (after 14 years) the Wild West. What I experienced was (almost universally) so beyond the pale I finally ran away screaming. I spent more and more of my time and energy attempting to motivate myself and the team by focusing on our efforts to do good in the space but after all of this no amount of rationalizing could make up for the cesspool I was living in every day. Like the famous saying goes - "If you think you might be depressed, first make sure you're not just surrounded by assholes".
Basically, what I'm saying is, when I see the unbelievable-to-most FTX (and other) stories unfolding in the media all I can think is "Yep, sounds about right". When I see stories like this and people asking "What are all of these people doing?" I can firmly respond with either "I have no idea" or "Trying to manage this crazy world takes a lot of people". Thankfully I'm not in the space any longer but as shoes keep dropping left and right I don't think I could be surprised by anything anymore.
[0] - https://fnftf.io/
My two prior startups were (essentially) in telecom and healthcare. Coming from these well established, highly regulated, somewhat legacy industries to "crypto"/NFTs/web3 was a very interesting experience, to say the least. Users/potential customers for our solution ranged from creators to marketplaces to collectors/investors. Several very general and broad observations:
1) The anonymous/pseudo anonymous nature of the space is bizarre. I would have multiple voice-only meetings with people using aliases and avatars for all communications. To this day I only know some people as "Mango Man" or whatever. Meeting people who could just burn down an entire identity and start fresh when things go sideways is an indicator of the nature of the space.
2) There is a general lack of "adults in the room". I would get on a call with the Founder/CEO of a marketplace or project that was valued (at least) in the > $100m range and hear and see things that were horrifying. My final breaking point was a call with the founder of a well known highly valued NFT marketplace who showed up (Tuesday morning, 10 AM) obviously high on some sort of stimulant. Within the first five minutes of the call they repeated their mantra of "I'm just trying to get made, paid, and laid" several times. They spent the remainder of the (very brief) call describing all kinds of things I'm pretty sure are illegal. On an introductory call.
3) The fraud and overall criminality is well beyond what is publicly known from FTX, Celsius, web3 is going great, etc. The most common reply regarding our solution was along the lines of "Why would we want this? We make our money on fraud". I was frequently reminded me of the scene in The Big Short when they talk to mortgage brokers and come away saying "Why are they confessing?" with the response being "They're not confessing, they're bragging".
4) Any semblance of professionalism and basic standards is generally non-existent. A HEAD OF LEGAL for a well known exchange (Superbowl commercial) would say and post things on LinkedIn that would get you terminated immediately in any other field. Daily.
5) The more technical startups/partners (infrastructure providers, etc) were generally the best to work with. However, the profiles of the founders and team were interesting - many of them had 1-2 years of junior experience at a FAANG (for better or worse).
6) VC in the space is even more wild than what has been reported in the media. I'll just leave this one at that.
7) Many people in the space seemed to just appear from nowhere. Like some of the technical founders with 1-2 years of junior experience and SBF who had a few years doing something at Jane Street I often times couldn't figure out where these people came from or why/how they were here. Of course this is common in tech (from Google to Facebook founders often "appear out of nowhere") but it was still extremely bizarre for SBF type characters to be dealing with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of other people's money with either no reputation/background or a shady one.
8) In my 25 years of experience I've never dealt with a more generally unimpressive group of people. After nearly two years in the space, meeting hundreds of people, there are only a handful I want to maintain any sort of personal or professional relationship with.
With my background I knew I would experience some culture shock (for lack of a better term) entering a space that was still (after 14 years) the Wild West. What I experienced was (almost universally) so beyond the pale I finally ran away screaming. I spent more and more of my time and energy attempting to motivate myself and the team by focusing on our efforts to do good in the space but after all of this no amount of rationalizing could make up for the cesspool I was living in every day. Like the famous saying goes - "If you think you might be depressed, first make sure you're not just surrounded by assholes".
Basically, what I'm saying is, when I see the unbelievable-to-most FTX (and other) stories unfolding in the media all I can think is "Yep, sounds about right". When I see stories like this and people asking "What are all of these people doing?" I can firmly respond with either "I have no idea" or "Trying to manage this crazy world takes a lot of people". Thankfully I'm not in the space any longer but as shoes keep dropping left and right I don't think I could be surprised by anything anymore.
[0] - https://fnftf.io/
> The anonymous/pseudo anonymous nature of the space is bizarre. I would have multiple voice-only meetings with people using aliases and avatars for all communications. To this day I only know some people as "Mango Man" or whatever. Meeting people who could just burn down an entire identity and start fresh when things go sideways is an indicator of the nature of the space.
I can't blame them. It involves money and it's a new and risky and currently unregulated space. Things go sideways unexpectedly or the SEC changes their rules suddenly (see them possibly classifying a bunch of tokens as securities when they didn't before, with all the KYC and other regulations that requires) and you run the risk of having both users that went too deep into it (like exist for damn near everything, including Pokemon cards) trying to kill you and SEC trying to put you in jail.
I've done a little code assistance on a web3 project (mostly just helping a friend who's doing the actual coding, when they have questions) and I'm doing my best not to have my name associated with it, just in case, even though I think the project is trying to make positive changes and will be one of the 'good' ones eventually.
For the longest time I avoided any jobs involving money specifically because I didn't want to risk screwing something up and causing a lot of pain or lost money for people (reason why I avoided healthcare too). And yet now I've got professional experience working for a healthcare company and as a consultant for a major financial company, so I ended up down that path anyway.
I can't blame them. It involves money and it's a new and risky and currently unregulated space. Things go sideways unexpectedly or the SEC changes their rules suddenly (see them possibly classifying a bunch of tokens as securities when they didn't before, with all the KYC and other regulations that requires) and you run the risk of having both users that went too deep into it (like exist for damn near everything, including Pokemon cards) trying to kill you and SEC trying to put you in jail.
I've done a little code assistance on a web3 project (mostly just helping a friend who's doing the actual coding, when they have questions) and I'm doing my best not to have my name associated with it, just in case, even though I think the project is trying to make positive changes and will be one of the 'good' ones eventually.
For the longest time I avoided any jobs involving money specifically because I didn't want to risk screwing something up and causing a lot of pain or lost money for people (reason why I avoided healthcare too). And yet now I've got professional experience working for a healthcare company and as a consultant for a major financial company, so I ended up down that path anyway.
> 1) The anonymous/pseudo anonymous nature of the space is bizarre. I would have multiple voice-only meetings with people using aliases and avatars for all communications. To this day I only know some people as "Mango Man" or whatever. Meeting people who could just burn down an entire identity and start fresh when things go sideways is an indicator of the nature of the space.
Most employees at Kraken don't know what the CTO looks like. He never turns the camera on during meetings and as far as I'm aware hasn't showed up to the in person events. He wrote most of the legacy backend.
This was mostly a curiosity though. None of the other points apply to him. He was professional.
> 6) VC in the space is even more wild than what has been reported in the media. I'll just leave this one at that.
I know a guy who went to a crypto hackathon (which is a chance for devs and start ups to show off for VCs.). He said a disturbing number of VCs, mostly creepy old guys who got rich off crypto, showed up with obvious asian/eastern European prostitutes or sugar babies.
Most employees at Kraken don't know what the CTO looks like. He never turns the camera on during meetings and as far as I'm aware hasn't showed up to the in person events. He wrote most of the legacy backend.
This was mostly a curiosity though. None of the other points apply to him. He was professional.
> 6) VC in the space is even more wild than what has been reported in the media. I'll just leave this one at that.
I know a guy who went to a crypto hackathon (which is a chance for devs and start ups to show off for VCs.). He said a disturbing number of VCs, mostly creepy old guys who got rich off crypto, showed up with obvious asian/eastern European prostitutes or sugar babies.
> Most employees at Kraken don't know what the CTO looks like. He never turns the camera on during meetings and as far as I'm aware hasn't showed up to the in person events. He wrote most of the legacy backend.
> This was mostly a curiosity though. None of the other points apply to him. He was professional.
Call me "old school" but the CTO of a company valued at > $10B that manages who-knows-how-much in terms of customer assets shouldn't be able to do this. Frankly, it's ridiculous - can you imagine the CTO of Bank of America being an avatar/unknown? Seriously. Where is an adult to say "turn your camera on, show up to stuff, use your real name, or you're out"?!?!
Regarding the "sugar babies" and what-not - yes. Just another data point that demonstrates how ridiculously shady and so far beyond acceptable behavior, practice, and standards the space is.
> This was mostly a curiosity though. None of the other points apply to him. He was professional.
Call me "old school" but the CTO of a company valued at > $10B that manages who-knows-how-much in terms of customer assets shouldn't be able to do this. Frankly, it's ridiculous - can you imagine the CTO of Bank of America being an avatar/unknown? Seriously. Where is an adult to say "turn your camera on, show up to stuff, use your real name, or you're out"?!?!
Regarding the "sugar babies" and what-not - yes. Just another data point that demonstrates how ridiculously shady and so far beyond acceptable behavior, practice, and standards the space is.
func fraudDetect()
if nft return true
At this point I can't say I disagree.
The genesis story is early 2021 I was talking to my sister (who is a respected digital artist) and she asked me about "these NFT things". Being technical I was of course aware of them. She then followed up with "Yeah, my friends and I have tried them but all of our stuff just ends up stolen anyway". Needless to say I was intrigued.
My general thinking was - this stuff is here, people are buying into it for whatever reasons, and the more I look the more fraud and shady stuff there is. Broadly speaking I tend to have a "harm reduction" mindset - everything from safe injection sites to crypto. For some things it just seems like people can't help themselves so once the "cat is out of the bag" there's value and nobility in making inherently risky things at least somewhat safer. I know there are plenty of people here on HN and elsewhere with the mindset of "they're idiots, they deserve to lose everything" and/or a desire to just watch the entire thing burn. I (clearly) have a more measured and nuanced take.
That said, my experience ended up being less like "safe injection sites" and more like "this entire space IS the cartel and there are few (if any) people doing any good whatsoever". As I noted I can't recall anything positive or beneficial in my time dealing with it. The impact on my mental health and general feeling of spitting in the ocean finally drove me out.
The genesis story is early 2021 I was talking to my sister (who is a respected digital artist) and she asked me about "these NFT things". Being technical I was of course aware of them. She then followed up with "Yeah, my friends and I have tried them but all of our stuff just ends up stolen anyway". Needless to say I was intrigued.
My general thinking was - this stuff is here, people are buying into it for whatever reasons, and the more I look the more fraud and shady stuff there is. Broadly speaking I tend to have a "harm reduction" mindset - everything from safe injection sites to crypto. For some things it just seems like people can't help themselves so once the "cat is out of the bag" there's value and nobility in making inherently risky things at least somewhat safer. I know there are plenty of people here on HN and elsewhere with the mindset of "they're idiots, they deserve to lose everything" and/or a desire to just watch the entire thing burn. I (clearly) have a more measured and nuanced take.
That said, my experience ended up being less like "safe injection sites" and more like "this entire space IS the cartel and there are few (if any) people doing any good whatsoever". As I noted I can't recall anything positive or beneficial in my time dealing with it. The impact on my mental health and general feeling of spitting in the ocean finally drove me out.
I interviewed with them. It was quite peculiar. I asked them how they were going to manage the extreme planned growth rate and no one had an answer. That was in late May.
(They didn't offer me a position for a given reason that was also weird. Strange place.)
(They didn't offer me a position for a given reason that was also weird. Strange place.)
> They literally had people with 1-2 years of experience conducting interviews last I remember.
What's the problem with that?
What's the problem with that?
That little experience makes it hard to judge applicant quality well and means they probably aren’t answering questions accurately. It’s a dead tell of a company which has a shortage of experienced staff and is growing too quickly — very strongly reminiscent of the dotcom bubble where people had the same “number go up!” mentality & some would openly say they were just looking busy until the IPO.
The effect Amazon's Bar Raises have on its long term success is highly undervalued.
I agree, and my experience of interviewing in the big tech has been very varied. Amazon's was the most professionally conducted one.
Plenty of wildly successful companies (Google, FB, etc.) have all had junior engineers interviewing people.
It's certainly possible, more so in the early days, but it's relatively rare that you see a successful company continue to have people with only a year or two professional experience making hiring decisions. If those people have solid backgrounds that approach isn't necessarily disastrous but it'll be limited - e.g. a fresh CS major doing a startup will probably hire people who can create working code, but they're probably going to over-value certain academic characteristics over practical engineering and miss solid candidates or (worse) expose the company to liability. Inexperience can also just lead to things like hiring people who seem like they're someone you'd want to hang out with.
Note also that I would draw a distinction between 1-2 years of total experience and, say, someone transitioning from academia to industry. Someone who was, say, a successful grad student likely also accumulated a fair amount of other life experience that a 22 year old is unlikely to have.
Note also that I would draw a distinction between 1-2 years of total experience and, say, someone transitioning from academia to industry. Someone who was, say, a successful grad student likely also accumulated a fair amount of other life experience that a 22 year old is unlikely to have.
No wonder tech interviews these days are so bad.
The only consistent thing yet hear about the FAANG interview process is how universally bad it is, but also how you should just play along to get your $300k/yr salary.
In the emerging points of their business. Or “juniors” with some kind of valuable expertise to the interview.
Not, “just graduated web dev boot camp and have a fleeting interest in web3” junior.
Not, “just graduated web dev boot camp and have a fleeting interest in web3” junior.
Which is not at all what we're talking about here since the original comment talks about people with one or two years of experience.
It’s was an exaggeration, but the point still stands. Two years experience is “just graduated” into the workforce. The lifespan of a worker is 30+ years.
I think there’s also something important about that period where you’re moving from only doing what other people instruct you to do towards making decisions and supporting them over time.
It’s indicative of a very inexperienced staff or one that is desperate for interviewers, presumably because they are binge hiring. There are places that go out of their way to get very junior people interviewing early on purpose but in those cases there is usually someone more senior also involved.
For most places though it means they were throwing whoever they could find at the interviews.
For most places though it means they were throwing whoever they could find at the interviews.
Why would you need someone with decades of experience to hire an intern or a new grad?
It's customary for a lot of companies to have an interviewer which is above or _at_ the level that you are recruiting. Therefore someone with a year or two of experience is perfectly able to hire an intern or someone that will be hired at the same level as them.
Looking at Amazon for example, "Hire and Develop the Best" is one of the leadership principles, and you CANNOT be promoted if you don't conduct interviews.
It's customary for a lot of companies to have an interviewer which is above or _at_ the level that you are recruiting. Therefore someone with a year or two of experience is perfectly able to hire an intern or someone that will be hired at the same level as them.
Looking at Amazon for example, "Hire and Develop the Best" is one of the leadership principles, and you CANNOT be promoted if you don't conduct interviews.
Inexperienced engineers simply don’t have the experience to make good hiring decisions. Having them being involved in the process is fine, but they should be shadowing someone more senior.
Well, most FAANGs would like to disagree. But they must all be wrong.
They clearly were right? they're all laying off 20% of people. Maybe this is what you meant and I just missed the sarcasm
I don't have data nor an opinion on this matter, but maybe most FAANGs are successful despite their hiring practice, not because of it.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having junior engineers conducting interviews. But if a junior engineer is on my interview panel, I'm going to politely decline and end the process. A junior is not going to have the experience to accurately evaluate someone with close to two decades of experience writing software. Same goes for kids with < 10 years of experience who call themselves "senior," which I find happens often at FAANG.
Last I was interviewed by a junior, I brought up a concept for which he had never heard of. Even after explaining it in great detail, he argued with me for half the interview trying to explain why such a system would never hold in practice. Needless to say, I did not get the position. Total waste of my time.
Last I was interviewed by a junior, I brought up a concept for which he had never heard of. Even after explaining it in great detail, he argued with me for half the interview trying to explain why such a system would never hold in practice. Needless to say, I did not get the position. Total waste of my time.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Really?
[deleted]
Anyone else notice that Coinbase changed its price trend in your assets from “beginning of time period to now” to “lowest point to now”?
I haven’t been able to find a view that shows a downward trend since…
I haven’t been able to find a view that shows a downward trend since…
Not just crypto.
I've noticed Fidelity removes default graphs from dashboards or changes the time period during major market corrections. Articles urging people not to panic sell also start appearing. Here's what they emailed customers on March 5, 2020:
Historically, the economy and the stock market have bounced back and market gains made during economic expansions have far outpaced losses that occurred during recessions.
I've noticed Fidelity removes default graphs from dashboards or changes the time period during major market corrections. Articles urging people not to panic sell also start appearing. Here's what they emailed customers on March 5, 2020:
Historically, the economy and the stock market have bounced back and market gains made during economic expansions have far outpaced losses that occurred during recessions.
> Articles urging people not to panic sell also start appearing.
Considering what people do and the track record of buy-and-hold, this is a responsible move.
Considering what people do and the track record of buy-and-hold, this is a responsible move.
I'm looking around the web app and don't see anything like this. Is this something in the mobile app?
On the web app I see options for viewing performance over reasonable periods like 1d, 5d, 1w, 1y, all
On the web app I see options for viewing performance over reasonable periods like 1d, 5d, 1w, 1y, all
I’m going to those views but the x”past year” and x”past day” and x”past week” numbers are not showing the change over the period stated
This morning it shows the total loss (or gain) for all time in every view.
that is extremely toxic and misleading. how the fuck is that allowed?
[deleted]
Okay Mr Reddit, no need for profanity. Parent comment is literally BSing. This isn't even happening on either of the mobile apps.
you got me, i used a swear word and for that i profusely apologize. it wont happen again
That is what I’m seeing.
Can you post a screenshot? The charts for me go back to "all time".
No, but right now my current balance is X
The trend says it is up about .5X in the past year
Right below that is the peak 1year ago which is about 3X
Trend should be -2X
Going to the 1D view it looks like it may be fixed, but the other views are showing bad numbers.
Trend should be -2X
Going to the 1D view it looks like it may be fixed, but the other views are showing bad numbers.
[deleted]
More precisely, this is what they actually did:
"Therefore, I've made the difficult decision to reduce our operating expense(1) by about 25% Q/Q, which includes letting go of about 950 people
(..)
(1) Comprising Sales and Marketing Expenses, Technology and Development + General & Administrative Expenses, including stock-based compensation and excluding restructuring expenses and Other operating expenses"
(..)
In futher news, highly recommend Ben Thompson's recent interview with Brian Armstrong.
"Therefore, I've made the difficult decision to reduce our operating expense(1) by about 25% Q/Q, which includes letting go of about 950 people
(..)
(1) Comprising Sales and Marketing Expenses, Technology and Development + General & Administrative Expenses, including stock-based compensation and excluding restructuring expenses and Other operating expenses"
(..)
In futher news, highly recommend Ben Thompson's recent interview with Brian Armstrong.
>accountability rests with me as the CEO
There it is. Rings incredibly hollow when the same line was trotted out just a few months ago with zero impact or meaning behind the statement, given it clearly didn't change anything.
There it is. Rings incredibly hollow when the same line was trotted out just a few months ago with zero impact or meaning behind the statement, given it clearly didn't change anything.
> accountability rests with me as the CEO
"As the accountability rests with me, I will be taking a 25% cut on my $60 million bonus this year"
"As the accountability rests with me, I will be taking a 25% cut on my $60 million bonus this year"
Unless he resigns along with the people he lets go, there is no accountability.
Would that really be desirable for the 80% who remain?
More than likely, any career CEO who would be brought in to replace him would likely continue staffing cuts, not reverse them.
More than likely, any career CEO who would be brought in to replace him would likely continue staffing cuts, not reverse them.
He could forgoe 75% of his compensation though, and I doubt he will, because not actually accountable.
Hell, he could drop down to the 2x employee salary ratio from the 1960s.
Generally speaking, if the current pilot has ran your plane into a mountain twice, you probably want a new pilot.
(Genuinely curious) how did he fly Coinbase into a mountain?
(Other than the layoffs which are happening across the board at nearly all big tech)
(Other than the layoffs which are happening across the board at nearly all big tech)
That way over hired. The company missed the nft wave. And their expenses went out of control. A good ceo would have recognized during the first round of layoffs a deeper cut was necessary to bring the company to profitability.
The one thing that surprises me in all this is that the BTC price has stayed at a stable 16k since mid October.
I don't see this discussed in enough HN threads. Everyone is quick to talk about FTX, Tether being a scam, etc but I rarely hear people discuss how the heck BTC is pegged at $16k this whole time, through it all.
You won't see this discussed on HN, there's an overall hostility toward Bitcoin. A few are interested or sometimes involved with it (whether with development or infrastructure) but don't bother enlightening the crowd since I think it's pretty hopeless here and they would be buried under downvotes.
I wonder if that resentment would have been the same toward the Internet in 1997. You know, that useless thing for hackers and scammers that only benefits crime and should be regulated like heck by governments for our safety.
I wonder if that resentment would have been the same toward the Internet in 1997. You know, that useless thing for hackers and scammers that only benefits crime and should be regulated like heck by governments for our safety.
Tech people were hugely enthusiastic about Internet-like things even before the internet existed. I know Arthur C Clarke predicted satellite TV in 1957; I'm sure one could find lots of examples of internet prediction, some positive, some negative (e.g. The Machine Stops, 1928).
But 97 was late for the internet. ARPANET dates back to the 1970s .. as a government project!
There was a great deal of value in the internet liberating people from monopolist telcos and their billing practices, as well as from borders, and there was nowhere near the same level of scamminess and crime. Why? Because there was no money changing hands.
But 97 was late for the internet. ARPANET dates back to the 1970s .. as a government project!
There was a great deal of value in the internet liberating people from monopolist telcos and their billing practices, as well as from borders, and there was nowhere near the same level of scamminess and crime. Why? Because there was no money changing hands.
ARPANET dates back to the 1960s.
You don't see it discussed because it's not news. "Thing has not changed in the past few months" doesn't get many news articles, and if there's no news articles being submitted, then a news article feed site like HN isn't going to have anything to post about that.
> I wonder if that resentment would have been the same toward the Internet in 1997.
My grandparents had an AOL account in 1997.
My grandparents had an AOL account in 1997.
HN userbase is older and more American than tech in general. It follows that they are more invested in the legacy financial system than most and don't even encounter the problems crypto tries to solve. Also sour grapes.
What are you talking about? America's financial system is the worst of the world's major economies from the perspective of people wanting to send money (to the point that the easiest way to send money between individuals is with paper checks, something that has virtually disappeared everywhere else). If anything, Bitcoin's promises of frictionless money transfer should have the most appeal to Americans since that's already a "solved problem" in the EU, Canada, Australia, etc.
[deleted]
I mean, the primary theory about Tether being a scam is that Tether is allegedly a scam _which is used to prop up the price of delicious bitcoin_, so that more or less tracks.
Well looks like we'll get a chance to find out!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34333210
The universe has delivered with impeccable timing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34333210
The universe has delivered with impeccable timing.
My theory is that a lot of prices in cryptoworld is set more by "vibes" rather that analysis of value and fundamental utility. You often see crypto prices hitting whole number price floors on the way down. I think it is from traders picking buy order prices by their gut feeling which leads to more whole numbers.
BTC fell through a few of these whole number price floors on the way down, this is just the one that finally broke the momentum. If it is going to continue to fall then downward pressure will build up until it overwhelms these buy orders and it will crack down to the next floor. Kind of like the 40k to 30k fall, the 30k to 20k fall or the 20k to 16k fall.
BTC fell through a few of these whole number price floors on the way down, this is just the one that finally broke the momentum. If it is going to continue to fall then downward pressure will build up until it overwhelms these buy orders and it will crack down to the next floor. Kind of like the 40k to 30k fall, the 30k to 20k fall or the 20k to 16k fall.
Not to be glib but what else would it be based on? All the great use cases that all the bankrupt crypto companies were peddling?
Simple: fraud
Right.. "everyone talking about Tether being a scam" means people are talking about why the price is still at $16k.
I don’t know but I don’t like that stability in a gambling market. This is not the case of asset being stable because the business is stable - there is no business beyond betting on the price of the asset. For me this is an indication of loss of interest in the casino.
Even if there seems to be a trading volume, i’m skeptical of that trading. Maybe it’s just painting the tape?
What are those people achieving by trading the thing at about the same price? Are we churning believers? Why would the price be stable?
Even if there seems to be a trading volume, i’m skeptical of that trading. Maybe it’s just painting the tape?
What are those people achieving by trading the thing at about the same price? Are we churning believers? Why would the price be stable?
Volume is not that useful. Could just be 10 whales trading with each other or exchanges doing some programmed rotations. When there’s nothing really backing the price then it’s most likely manipulation
It's possible that it's whales selling to themselves or each other to dominate volume and create the illusion of a price
Yeah, and transaction volume hasn't changed either
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_day#....
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_day#....
Zoom out to 5Y - looks like the transaction volume is on average ~10-15% lower than before mid 2021
A lot of valuations show it's very cheap. Maybe hardcore believers start buying below this price.
https://hcburger.com/blog/powerlaw/index.html
https://twitter.com/DeFi_initiate/status/1576543256627724288...
Of course, being historically consistent is not mandatory. The models may break, especially now that we have higher interest rates.
https://hcburger.com/blog/powerlaw/index.html
https://twitter.com/DeFi_initiate/status/1576543256627724288...
Of course, being historically consistent is not mandatory. The models may break, especially now that we have higher interest rates.
Betting against feds are fun! /s
Against? Is the role of the Fed not to dilute the national currency?
2020 and 2021 exist as years, the answer to your question is clearly negative, at least for certain time periods.
Years since 1970 with the inflation rate below the supposed 2% target:
2020
2019
2013-2016
2010
2009
2002
and 1986.
For a 52-year period, that's not too many years. Just a fifth.
If the Fed were genuinely targeting 2%, I'd expect half.
The geometric mean inflation rate of this period is 3.92%, almost double the stated target.
I used data from here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/infl...
2020
2019
2013-2016
2010
2009
2002
and 1986.
For a 52-year period, that's not too many years. Just a fifth.
If the Fed were genuinely targeting 2%, I'd expect half.
The geometric mean inflation rate of this period is 3.92%, almost double the stated target.
I used data from here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/infl...
It is strange, that so far Coinbase has not took any steps towards supporting the Lightning Network.
If the Coinbase app supported it, that would allow all of the Coinbase users to do real decentralized micropayments.
Any theories, why they don't do that?
If the Coinbase app supported it, that would allow all of the Coinbase users to do real decentralized micropayments.
Any theories, why they don't do that?
Coinbase is technologically kind of a joke. Their matching engine is crap. They haven't even adopted bech32. They just do the bare minimum to keep things working for 99% of users, and for the unlucky 1% they follow the same customer support strategy as Google (aka automated emails but no actual humans). Unfortunately Coinbase is YC and they do a lot of marketing, so people who are just getting started tend to think they're a frontrunner.
If you want an exchange that keeps up with the ecosystem you should use someone else. Kraken qualifies: https://blog.kraken.com/post/13502/kraken-now-supports-insta...
If you want an exchange that keeps up with the ecosystem you should use someone else. Kraken qualifies: https://blog.kraken.com/post/13502/kraken-now-supports-insta...
Counterpoint. After cobbling together a bunch of Coinbase products, we successfully use Coinbase to receive and send payments for our online marketplace in much the same way you would use a PayPal type service. The user experience is great and technologically there is no match. We literally could not do what we do with any other service. If Coinbase focused on payments they could dethrone the kings of the international payment space in no time.
Fair enough. I was criticizing their consumer side and the exchange specifically. I don't know anything about their business products.
Your point is still valid. They have all this technology "sitting around" and they seem to be avoiding focus on the obvious growth areas in favor of trading. See below yao420's point.
> They haven't even adopted bech32
What? They’ve been supporting segwit addresses for years
What? They’ve been supporting segwit addresses for years
You can do a Segwit transaction with an “old” Pay-to-Script-Hash (P2SH) transaction. That is an address that starts with "3".
You only get the transaction size discount with “native” segwit transactions that are BECH32.
https://www.ledger.com/academy/difference-between-segwit-and...
You only get the transaction size discount with “native” segwit transactions that are BECH32.
https://www.ledger.com/academy/difference-between-segwit-and...
I know and they support both for a while now. Why would they not support it if it saves fees?
I believe, for compatibility reasons
Afaik they support the backwards-compatible parts, but nothing new. I'm talking specifically about "Receive to P2WPKH/P2WSH" in this chart:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption#Exchanges
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption#Exchanges
Well that chart is plainly wrong or outdated. This is a random coinbase transaction from 2021 and it pays out to all kinds of addresses including P2WPKH/P2WSH.
https://blockstream.info/tx/62c16aeb80944ed8e6d4c896dbd88661...
https://blockstream.info/tx/62c16aeb80944ed8e6d4c896dbd88661...
Because the vast majority of crypto users only see it as a speculative vehicle and do not care about decentralized payments, I would guess.
But giving the tens of millions of Coinbase users a way to do cheap and fast microtransactions could change that.
"Oh, you also have a lightning app? Cool, I'll send you the money this way."
"Oh, you also have a lightning app? Cool, I'll send you the money this way."
I used to work at Coinbase. The thing is no one is actually using it for transactions of any type. The vast majority of users buy a token and let it sit until they can make a profit. The volume of transactions to other accounts was in the single percentage points.
I think for most folks, this is akin to paying for everyday expenses with fractions of your stock portfolio.
[deleted]
[deleted]
LN can be used privately if you send to your own wallet, and Coinbase likes to track what people do after their coins leave Coinbase. Brian said they can't list privacy friendly coins like XMR due to regulations.
LN is also unreliable to this day and i frequently get routing issues about 15% of the time using the most popular custodial LN wallets and sending to popular LN payment gateways. I'm guessing it would be even worse if i was transacting with small shops or self-hosted LN users. This would be a massive customer support burden.
LN is also unreliable to this day and i frequently get routing issues about 15% of the time using the most popular custodial LN wallets and sending to popular LN payment gateways. I'm guessing it would be even worse if i was transacting with small shops or self-hosted LN users. This would be a massive customer support burden.
> Brian said they can't list privacy friendly coins like XMR due to regulations.
I know he’s said this but it’s 100% bullshit since Kraken is able to list XMR just fine.
I know he’s said this but it’s 100% bullshit since Kraken is able to list XMR just fine.
There's been a lot of longstanding potential extra vectors for abuse in the LN protocol and it is not ready for operation at the specific junction where it is most vulnerable to abuses, which is financial exchanges. Exchanges might choose to opt for reasonable security, which is a confirmed on-blockchain transaction.
LN is definitely good for something where there's an in-person exchange of goods so at least potential abuse would leave someone at a physical location with surveillance footage, or where there is a subscription service that can be turned off if the payment turns out to be fraudulent. LN has a higher likelihood of assurance of funds delivery in a timely manner than a credit card -- but that there are entities developed that will insure traditional credit transactions.
LN is definitely good for something where there's an in-person exchange of goods so at least potential abuse would leave someone at a physical location with surveillance footage, or where there is a subscription service that can be turned off if the payment turns out to be fraudulent. LN has a higher likelihood of assurance of funds delivery in a timely manner than a credit card -- but that there are entities developed that will insure traditional credit transactions.
Because the lightning network is garbage?
It doesn't actually let you settle payments quicker. What it does is set up a "channel" between two participants which can quickly adjust its balance at any time (but only up to the value originally locked in it!), and then ultimately settle out if you want to close the channel.
You can't use it to make a payment to an unrelated person without opening a channel. So there's a "routing layer" where you find a channel in common, like trying to send a UUCP email. e.g. if you wanted to send to another coinbase user, you'd send over your channel to coinbase and they'd send it out again over their channel.
But then .. you could just both use a coinbase payment account?
You can't use it to make a payment to an unrelated person without opening a channel. So there's a "routing layer" where you find a channel in common, like trying to send a UUCP email. e.g. if you wanted to send to another coinbase user, you'd send over your channel to coinbase and they'd send it out again over their channel.
But then .. you could just both use a coinbase payment account?
The protocol itself? Why do you think so?
1. All payments have to be routed across channels of arbitrary size across an arbitrary network. It's a small travelling salesman problem that only gets worse as the network increases in size.
2. It requires a transaction to L1 to open/close a channel. If 1B+ people used it the Bitcoin network itself couldn't cope with that. At 7tps it can handle a max of 220M transactions per year.
3. You need enough liquidity in all channels to your destination to send a payment. This is fine for micro transactions but it can't handle $1k+ transactions well at all.
4. You have to re-balance channels or they stop working.
5. You need some sort of watchtower / guardian node to prevent the other person from being able to steal your funds.
ZK-Rollups completely obsolete the lightning network. If Bitcoin did a hard fork to make them possible every single person would migrate to them. Lightning is not a long term solution, it's mostly a meme to throw back at people who say Bitcoin doesn't scale.
2. It requires a transaction to L1 to open/close a channel. If 1B+ people used it the Bitcoin network itself couldn't cope with that. At 7tps it can handle a max of 220M transactions per year.
3. You need enough liquidity in all channels to your destination to send a payment. This is fine for micro transactions but it can't handle $1k+ transactions well at all.
4. You have to re-balance channels or they stop working.
5. You need some sort of watchtower / guardian node to prevent the other person from being able to steal your funds.
ZK-Rollups completely obsolete the lightning network. If Bitcoin did a hard fork to make them possible every single person would migrate to them. Lightning is not a long term solution, it's mostly a meme to throw back at people who say Bitcoin doesn't scale.
One thing I don’t like about the protocol is that LN nodes must stay online or risk having the other parties of their channels steal their funds. I know there are watchtower services to help guard against this but needing to trust a 3rd party to make sure you don’t lose your money goes against trustlessness, a core principle of cryptocurrencies. This is the reason I abandoned the idea of running my own LN node. I didn’t want to risk losing money in the case of an extended outage of my node.
How do? Asking genuinely since I don’t use anything crypto.
The stock is up 15% pre-market. Maybe if they cut 90% staff, they'd go back to IPO levels.
> I've made the difficult decision to reduce our operating expense(1) by about 25% Q/Q, which includes letting go of about 950 people
read that again
you're not an individual to corporations, just an expendable
can only imagine the joy shareholders get out of "cutting expenses", they get richer and you peasants lose jobs
read that again
you're not an individual to corporations, just an expendable
can only imagine the joy shareholders get out of "cutting expenses", they get richer and you peasants lose jobs
Why would you expect a corporation to treat you as an "individual"? What would that even mean?
You think executives should let a company go bust, rather than shedding staff when times aren't good?
You think executives should let a company go bust, rather than shedding staff when times aren't good?
I doubt that it's news to anyone that staff are an expense.
[deleted]
Employees got 14 weeks severance. They didn't have to do that.
This is not true. There are State and Federal restrictions on mass layoffs, which generally require a few months of notice. Giving severance is understood to count as notice. In any case you'd get the money, and you probably wouldn't be useful anyways.
The stock jumped 15% yesterday before this was public information.
Coincidence? I think not.
Coincidence? I think not.
a lot of tech stocks jumped yesterday, and crypto stocks are extremely volatile.
At closing most tech stocks only had mild gains, even the more volatile ones afaict.
[deleted]
It was up on this report
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/09/jefferies-initia...
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/09/jefferies-initia...
While 20% is a lot - how far back does this bring the headcount? A lot of these companies have what seem to be large reductions in staff but are more of a correction of insane hiring sprees.
There’s a mention of 950 employees in TFA.
Coinbase may or may not be a good company. I have no idea.
What I do know is that they have a lot of things working against them: - Money is not cheap anymoore - Their market is collapsing.
I don't see how a company makes it through. Even if they navigate the present environment and manage to finance the company through the new few years, they may do so in to an ultimately collapsing market.
There is no reason to assume that crypto trading will exist in any meaningful way in the next few years. (It may, sure. You may believe, yes. Are there any clear indicators that it will stabilize and grow? No there are not.)
What I do know is that they have a lot of things working against them: - Money is not cheap anymoore - Their market is collapsing.
I don't see how a company makes it through. Even if they navigate the present environment and manage to finance the company through the new few years, they may do so in to an ultimately collapsing market.
There is no reason to assume that crypto trading will exist in any meaningful way in the next few years. (It may, sure. You may believe, yes. Are there any clear indicators that it will stabilize and grow? No there are not.)
I'm a huge crypto bear, and even if crypto collapses 99% - it's still a >$10B market, so there will still be people trading it.
The sports trading card market is ~$7B - and plenty of people's entire life and income revolves around trading sports cards.
The sports trading card market is ~$7B - and plenty of people's entire life and income revolves around trading sports cards.
The only issue with the comparison of cryptocurrencies and sports trading cards is that trading cards will still provide some utility to the 1% of people trading them. The primary utility of cryptocurrencies is the anticipation of them going up in value. If 99% of people stop using crypto, it loses its utility for the last 1% of users.
> Money is not cheap anymoore
This is actually working for them. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/02/coinbases-inter...
This is actually working for them. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/02/coinbases-inter...
I'm curious what coinbase leadership has done to try and innovate in this space. they had this proclaimed vision of democratizing finance but they're just letting people buy and sell crypto.
There's a Lex Friedman podcast with the CEO of Coinbase. I don't remember exactly what all they talked about but at least there was stuff about wallet innovation.
There was a time when disruptive startups were small and lean. Now they are overhired. It’s fault of this crazy VC world where you are pushed to grow at all costs.
I am bullish on bootstrapped startup for next years.
I am bullish on bootstrapped startup for next years.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>This is the first time we've seen a crypto cycle coincide with a broader economic downturn.
Unemployment in the US is currently at its lowest level in 50 years. What economic downturn are they referring to?
Unemployment in the US is currently at its lowest level in 50 years. What economic downturn are they referring to?
High inflation, stock market, etc.
Neither of which has caused an economic downturn yet. The economy is doing just fine. Tech companies laying people off because money isn't free anymore is not an economic downturn.
Not sure what blanket you're hiding under but just because unemployment is low doesn't mean the economy is fine. Many companies are seeing a slowdown thanks to inflationary pressures in consumers. The stock market just tends to drop before earnings consistently drop and recover before earnings consistently recover.
High inflation necessitating high interest rates is not a healthy economy.
High inflation necessitating high interest rates is not a healthy economy.
Wow, so whats the total now?
I guess all companies are making cuts before new fiscal year? Survive this month and maybe you're ok for time being?
I guess all companies are making cuts before new fiscal year? Survive this month and maybe you're ok for time being?
Hopefully this pivot allows them to realize promoting altcoins like Doge will not take them very far, and go deeper on the Lightning Network integration to enable their customers to move funds and use apps made on L2/Nostr
I agree with this analysis. So much of what I see in crypto is demand generation which just makes “churn” worse when folks realize they’ve invested in the wrong assets due to misleading communication.
[deleted]
They hired thousands of engineers but had the worst SDKs & APIs in crypto-space.
That's when I sold.
That's when I sold.
edit: wrong thread
You probably wanted to post this on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34321937 ?
[deleted]
this scam industry can't collapse fast enough
First I was thinking, "hey maybe the recent downturn in crypto will weed out the most obvious nonsense"
But now I see #1 story on Coindesk "Shiba Inu-Themed BONK Tokens Are Yielding Nearly 1,000%"
So I guess we are not there yet
But now I see #1 story on Coindesk "Shiba Inu-Themed BONK Tokens Are Yielding Nearly 1,000%"
So I guess we are not there yet
If anything the downturn will create even more nonsense, as people try to keep the money flowing in. If you think of crypto writ large as a sort of accidental self-organising distributed Ponzi scheme (which isn't unreasonable), then this is exactly what you'd expect; traditionally towards the end they get weirder and weirder, as people need money coming in by whatever means.
Precisely, it will just get weirder and more extreme until it explodes. These are all spasms of a dying organism. The addiction is so massive though that there will be some kind of backlash or a shift to something else. It's like when the authorities cracked down on money laundering through banks, for every one they killed four new ones sprang up.
It may be rational behavior though. If the insider view is that the equity is worthless it makes sense to explore every possible option, no matter how weird.
But Bitcoin has "exploded" in the past, crashing 70%+ several times, yet each time it had a higher and higher floor. How do you explain this?
Just like amongst stamp collectors, a certain group will simply never sell. They'd rather never get a cent for they collectibles than sell at a price lower than what they feel would be "appropriate". Trade activies in irrational markets like that lie somewhere on the spectrum between the extremes of rational trade and belief affirmation ritual.
And some collectors just collect and don't really care about the money.
Yea this is what decriers don't explain. I may not view at as a strong currency for which it was intended but it's undeniable it has become a store for speculative value that isn't going away anytime soon.
There's a lot of trash in the crypto world but also some valid projects.
There's a lot of trash in the crypto world but also some valid projects.
I don't know how you equate "speculative value" with "valid projects". Bitcoin has value because people are long on crypto. "Long" has an end date - just because it's 50 years instead of 10 years doesn't mean it's not coming.
If there's less crypto being issued than fiat, and demand were constant as a % of people's wealth (which I admit is a big if), then crypto is bound to go up.
There is no end date to government currency debasement.
There is no end date to government currency debasement.
This is to say that if demand outpaces supply, price is going to go up. However, this is true of any asset. So why mention specifically 'crypto', as if there was something magical about 'crypto' that means it's bound to go up?
My point is yes, it is true of any asset. You might as well own cans of beans. But the purpose is to stave off the effects of monetary expansion while staying liquid. Cryptocurrency is in a special niche in that parameter space.
While other assets are bound to provide long-term returns greater than inflation (for example, stocks and bonds [1]), cryptocurrency can not surpass inflation long-term, but it still does so while demand is growing. In addition, even after it reaches a stable demand (which I reckon will be in 5-10 years, with market saturation), it will be a means of diversification (like gold is currently).
[1] - https://totalrealreturns.com/
While other assets are bound to provide long-term returns greater than inflation (for example, stocks and bonds [1]), cryptocurrency can not surpass inflation long-term, but it still does so while demand is growing. In addition, even after it reaches a stable demand (which I reckon will be in 5-10 years, with market saturation), it will be a means of diversification (like gold is currently).
[1] - https://totalrealreturns.com/
Well yes - but the assumption is that demand will drop as more people realize crypto has no long term viability as real financial infrastructure.
The supply of crypto isn't limited because people can just mint new chains. And of course, the more the number goes up on a chain the less attractive it is to actual users as opposed to holders.
> The supply of crypto isn't limited because people can just mint new chains.
It is silly to lump all crypto coins in a single bucket. BTC is very different than DOGE or SHIB. I guess your parent post was about BTC supply being limited.
It is silly to lump all crypto coins in a single bucket. BTC is very different than DOGE or SHIB. I guess your parent post was about BTC supply being limited.
Interesting you say that, because it's actually very similar to Doge (though of course, dissimilar to Shib, because shib is an ERC20 token on Ethereum)
So you also think that The Starry Night in MOMA is worthless because you can buy a very similar one on Etsy for $65?
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1317189452/starry-night-by-vinc...
I didn't say they were similar value, this is a strawman.
But if we're looking at art, and you show me the original Starry night, a print, and then a picture of the kool-aid man busting through a wall, and ask me which 2 are most similar, I'm going to pick the starry nights
But if we're looking at art, and you show me the original Starry night, a print, and then a picture of the kool-aid man busting through a wall, and ask me which 2 are most similar, I'm going to pick the starry nights
Network effects dictate that value concentrates in the most popular chains. The top few will always dominate.
Lots of people go base jumping. I can't explain it, and yet they do, in spite of multiple terrible crashes.
I actually thought the Russian invasion of Ukraine would result in more Bitcoin usage and the price going up again.
It could be that people are just holding on. The question is: why is it worth anything at all?
There's a fundamental floor of value where "in the bad old days" I once bought a specialty swiss army knife (a very custom gift; details utterly irrelevant) and I wanted the knife enough to pay middlemen about 20% overall to turn by USD into ... whatever the swiss were using at the time. It used to cost twice as much money to move money around the world than to move a small consumer good around the world. That's just how the world was. Weird to think it would have been half the cost to mail the swiss a gold coin than to transfer money all legally.
Clearly, I didn't think the middlemen provided 20% of value, but I was willing to cough up the cash to perform the overall transaction. If a cheaper money transfer option existed I'd never have used the middlemen, whom provided nothing of value to me for their 20% charge. Cheaper options do exist now...
There's a lot of hand waving, but if you trust paypal, which you probably should not, the cost of moving money internationally has dropped to about 5% and the cost of currency conversions has dropped to 4%. I would assume they double dip and converting USD in USA to swiss whatevers in Switzerland would cost about 9%. Then of course there are withdrawal fees and so forth stacked on top.
Anyway, lets say you can turn and burn bitcoin in "somewhat less than an hour" so simply divide total international daily transaction volume by twenty five or so and that seems a reasonable starting point for a store of value. If the price gets too high making it cost more to use BTC than paypal, then the BTC transaction volume would seem to drop until prices drop and people start using BTC again.
Obviously for various UI and enduser reasons I would not expect all international trade to flow over either BTC or paypal or the legacy banking system, but "enough" should be there to support the BTC price at some level.
Clearly, I didn't think the middlemen provided 20% of value, but I was willing to cough up the cash to perform the overall transaction. If a cheaper money transfer option existed I'd never have used the middlemen, whom provided nothing of value to me for their 20% charge. Cheaper options do exist now...
There's a lot of hand waving, but if you trust paypal, which you probably should not, the cost of moving money internationally has dropped to about 5% and the cost of currency conversions has dropped to 4%. I would assume they double dip and converting USD in USA to swiss whatevers in Switzerland would cost about 9%. Then of course there are withdrawal fees and so forth stacked on top.
Anyway, lets say you can turn and burn bitcoin in "somewhat less than an hour" so simply divide total international daily transaction volume by twenty five or so and that seems a reasonable starting point for a store of value. If the price gets too high making it cost more to use BTC than paypal, then the BTC transaction volume would seem to drop until prices drop and people start using BTC again.
Obviously for various UI and enduser reasons I would not expect all international trade to flow over either BTC or paypal or the legacy banking system, but "enough" should be there to support the BTC price at some level.
Don't forget crime and startup business.
I ordered equipment for a company from a European seller , and because I wasn't a VC backed technology startup, instead focused on physical goods- there was no army of people to help me set up an international bank for my company. So what I did was drop them some bitcoin. Just getting the wire approvals would've taken longer.
I ordered equipment for a company from a European seller , and because I wasn't a VC backed technology startup, instead focused on physical goods- there was no army of people to help me set up an international bank for my company. So what I did was drop them some bitcoin. Just getting the wire approvals would've taken longer.
That's fair. Buying things overseas is much, much simpler. I wonder what the value of that would be if BTC were to only be valued on that basis.
It's a pump and dump with most of the tokens centralized in top 20 wallets. Crypto needs to die.
I agree, but 1% of society holds more wealth than the bottom 50%. To a passing observer of crypto, they see that a few have extreme amounts of wealth, just like every other currency, and think everything seems normal.
And the solution is something where 0,000001% society hold 50% of the coins/"wealth"?
The reason bitcoin will never be the main currency is, that even in case case crypto will ever be technically/UX viable as a currency (is very, very, very far from it) nobody of the 99% that do not own bitcoin now will choose bitcoin as the main currency. They will choose some most likely government started crypto where they can exchange their current money 1:1 and not buy into some stupid old thing that gives them nothing.
So if crypto ever succeeds it is the death of bitcoin as the new system that converts from the old will win by a million miles
The reason bitcoin will never be the main currency is, that even in case case crypto will ever be technically/UX viable as a currency (is very, very, very far from it) nobody of the 99% that do not own bitcoin now will choose bitcoin as the main currency. They will choose some most likely government started crypto where they can exchange their current money 1:1 and not buy into some stupid old thing that gives them nothing.
So if crypto ever succeeds it is the death of bitcoin as the new system that converts from the old will win by a million miles
They don't see the difference in mechanisms. Getting rich through pump and dump vs getting rich through making or doing something people find valuable.
I think we're past believing that our top .1% is bringing value that's worth billions of times more than the rest of the population.
They're all hoarding wealth and offloading risk on others, it's just that in comparison, the crypto-rich are not (yet?) a social class with an army of lobbyists on its payroll.
They're all hoarding wealth and offloading risk on others, it's just that in comparison, the crypto-rich are not (yet?) a social class with an army of lobbyists on its payroll.
> I think we're past believing that our top .1% is bringing value that's worth billions of times more than the rest of the population.
Fortunately, we do not have to rely on our beliefs here, we have an objective measure, which we call "money".
If someone starts a company in their garage, and a decade later that company is worth few billions of dollars then that's the value this person brought to society - because people willingly paid them those billions of dollars for their product/service.
Of course the whole logic breaks down with purely speculative financial assets such as crypto.
Fortunately, we do not have to rely on our beliefs here, we have an objective measure, which we call "money".
If someone starts a company in their garage, and a decade later that company is worth few billions of dollars then that's the value this person brought to society - because people willingly paid them those billions of dollars for their product/service.
Of course the whole logic breaks down with purely speculative financial assets such as crypto.
By that only measure Nobels are thousand of time less valuable than Sam Bankman Fried
Nobel prize winners are bad example, because their work is usually theoretical, hard to put to use. If someone writes a paper tomorrow proving that faster-than-light travel is possible then the only immediate value it brings is that you now have a nice lecture to read in bed. There are still thousands man-years of work required before an actual spaceship will be available for sale in your local dealership.
He didn't say it's the only measure.
Alternatively, you could let people pay whatever they want for the product. That would also give you a very accurate and objective measure of how people value the product.
What? You don't think the two measures would converge? In either case, the one with more market power would use that to improve their side of the bargain? Who'd've thunk...
What? You don't think the two measures would converge? In either case, the one with more market power would use that to improve their side of the bargain? Who'd've thunk...
That would not tell you anything about how much someone values a product. Everyone will happily pay 0 for something they value at 10. It's a fantastic deal for them. Too discover the true value you have to raise the price until they refuse to pay it. Which is what a market is intended to do.
> If someone starts a company in their garage, and a decade later that company is worth few billions of dollars then that's the value this person brought to society - because people willingly paid them those billions of dollars for their product/service.
What was the value FTX or Theranos brought to society?
What was the value FTX or Theranos brought to society?
You'll note that when it goes wrong in each of those cases, we lock the perpetrators up in a box. And their company's value drops according to the new information.
Totally, because the _expected future value_ changes with the new information. If they had actually created something of value, that wouldn't change because of new information. But they hadn't, and yet their companies were worth billions.
"Provides value" is loosely connected to "expected future value", but it's certainly not the same thing.
"Provides value" is loosely connected to "expected future value", but it's certainly not the same thing.
I agree. Except creating something of value isn't the same as company value - company value should be derived from ability to make money at a certain rate while spending it at a certain rate. This does include what you say, but with some extra bits.
But back to your point: it is possible to simulate either or both of those things and have eager investors get in early, but that's why they (probably) get in for less money than if the company had done what it claimed. They took a risk, and taking a risk is one of the valuable contributions one can make to a company.
But back to your point: it is possible to simulate either or both of those things and have eager investors get in early, but that's why they (probably) get in for less money than if the company had done what it claimed. They took a risk, and taking a risk is one of the valuable contributions one can make to a company.
Parasitic rents and many other market distortions/extortions exist.
Saying that something exists isn't a complete thought.
Statements in a conversations do not stand alone. Thoughts flow from one to another.
Thoughts can't flow if they aren't expressed completely. Insinuation can flow, but not open thoughts.
You're missing the difference between ownership and money. People who make extremely useful companies own parts of them. They don't have that money in cash. The only thing they can do with that ownership is to sell it, which the market also seems a valuable thing. They have to constantly do valuable things to have money. They aren't like a government, which can lock you in a box for not paying them. Companies have to earn it.
Average wealth of the top 0.1% in the US is ~$50m. Average wealth overall is ~$100k. So it’s not billions of times more, it’s ~thousands of times more.
Most high net worth individuals keep their wealth in stocks and shares. This is not what hoarding means.
The comparison to crypto scams is absurd.
Most high net worth individuals keep their wealth in stocks and shares. This is not what hoarding means.
The comparison to crypto scams is absurd.
To be fair, it's a little bit harder to see the difference between pump & dump vs getting born rich.
That's neither fair nor obvious.
Inheritance makes providing value worth doing past the point of one's own comfort. Many people's work becomes most valuable in their latter years, and so we would want them to keep working and pass on wealth, as opposed to either stopping working or just splashing their money out on nonsense.
The principle of being able to own things and work to one's own good, and the good of those whom one choosing to transfer it to, is the fundamental basis on which we now exist in the most advanced societies the world has ever seen, and the most rapidly advancing societies. It's not perfect, but every authoritarian attempt to make things better by centralising power in the name of fairness has gone terribly.
Pump and dump schemes are just nothing like that.
Inheritance makes providing value worth doing past the point of one's own comfort. Many people's work becomes most valuable in their latter years, and so we would want them to keep working and pass on wealth, as opposed to either stopping working or just splashing their money out on nonsense.
The principle of being able to own things and work to one's own good, and the good of those whom one choosing to transfer it to, is the fundamental basis on which we now exist in the most advanced societies the world has ever seen, and the most rapidly advancing societies. It's not perfect, but every authoritarian attempt to make things better by centralising power in the name of fairness has gone terribly.
Pump and dump schemes are just nothing like that.
From the perspective of those born poor with little prospect of improving their station, I don’t see how it’s obvious that the people who inherited wealth are more deserving of the money than the people who got it by scamming.
The legitimacy of the social contract that respects private ownership depends on the prospect of a good life for those who work for it.
When people lose belief in that prospect, they have no reason to respect the rules of that social contract.
The legitimacy of the social contract that respects private ownership depends on the prospect of a good life for those who work for it.
When people lose belief in that prospect, they have no reason to respect the rules of that social contract.
I don't think you can lump people unable to improve their lot into a homogenous group all unable to see what money is. Some will; some won't. And that doesn't make money something else than what it is.
I agree that as individual liberty is eroded, and it's easier to just become yet another BS cog in a giant BS machine, with no incentives to make anything better, then you can descend into something authoritarian that promises a better way, such as our previous attempts at socialism, but the way out isn't to reinforce (or repeat) incorrect assumptions about money. It's to campaign for more liberty and fairness.
I agree that as individual liberty is eroded, and it's easier to just become yet another BS cog in a giant BS machine, with no incentives to make anything better, then you can descend into something authoritarian that promises a better way, such as our previous attempts at socialism, but the way out isn't to reinforce (or repeat) incorrect assumptions about money. It's to campaign for more liberty and fairness.
Bonk happened within a week so you might say that rug pulls have at least gotten more efficient...
They go to real life jail. bonk
I am not sure if BONK already rugpulled.
There are too many tokens with Elon Musk and Shiba Inu, and they are all interchangeable.
There are too many tokens with Elon Musk and Shiba Inu, and they are all interchangeable.
I could swear the owner claimed he had gambled the cash but maybe I'm wrong.
To put this politely: crypto’s growth model heavily depends on those “quirky” projects to attract new users, drive trade volume, and bring in cash.
It's all obvious nonsense, always has been.
[deleted]
“ All Coinbase personnel will be given proper notice and terminated. But make no mistake. Though they're the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure.”
..."and as a result I have decided to step down and hand the company over to someone more capable of navigating today's challenges"
/s
I think we'd all like to imagine a world where company's are run like sea faring ships- the captain gets paid the most to be accountable for the whole operation, and when things go wrong must be the last one off the ship. To the point where any selfish behavior by the captain in an emergency can be criminal. (This is just an analogy, not saying the CEO should actually risk life and limb.)
But in reality they are run a lot more like Project Runway. The contestants pour their blood, sweat, and tears into their garments and over the course of the season, and eventually the best of them receives a spread in Vogue and something like a $500,000 contract and some other goodies. The real winner though is always Heidi, who collects her $20M fee regardless of who gets the show's nominal prizes and is awarded an Emmy for executive producing.
/s
I think we'd all like to imagine a world where company's are run like sea faring ships- the captain gets paid the most to be accountable for the whole operation, and when things go wrong must be the last one off the ship. To the point where any selfish behavior by the captain in an emergency can be criminal. (This is just an analogy, not saying the CEO should actually risk life and limb.)
But in reality they are run a lot more like Project Runway. The contestants pour their blood, sweat, and tears into their garments and over the course of the season, and eventually the best of them receives a spread in Vogue and something like a $500,000 contract and some other goodies. The real winner though is always Heidi, who collects her $20M fee regardless of who gets the show's nominal prizes and is awarded an Emmy for executive producing.
Why CEO should step down while cutting staff? Staff got their money they agreed on.
The ones to handle the burden are the ones who had skin in the game (aka stockholders). And stockholders can definitely decide for anyone to step down. The workers are actually in the best, safest, position here.
Stockholders have cash in the game. workers have skin in the game; they need foos and shelter.
The emergencies you're talking about in seafaring are situations where people might die. Conventions and rules appropriate for that kind of situation are very different than for lower stakes situations, and I don't think the analogy is very illuminating.
Right. In a situation where people may die, the leader must risk his own life to protect the lives of those under him. In a situation where people may lose their livelihoods, the leader should risk his own livelihood to protect the livelihoods of those under him. How is this analogy inappropriate?
Lives and employment work very differently:
* People understandably put a very high value on their life continuing, and really don't want to trade it against other things.
* People vary a lot in how much value they put on their job continuing, and how much they are willing to trade off against it.
For example, many people would consider taking a 2x raise even if it increased their chances of losing their job in the next 3y from 5% to 50%, but you're not going to find many takers for a 50% chance of death in the next 3y no matter what you're offering.
You can have a culture where jobs are treated as sacrosanct as lives, who are nearly so. In a culture like that companies would be extremely cautious about hiring in a way that would make workers overall worse off, and startups with be much less practical. Europe is farther in this direction than the US, though not all the way to what I think you are proposing with your analogy.
* People understandably put a very high value on their life continuing, and really don't want to trade it against other things.
* People vary a lot in how much value they put on their job continuing, and how much they are willing to trade off against it.
For example, many people would consider taking a 2x raise even if it increased their chances of losing their job in the next 3y from 5% to 50%, but you're not going to find many takers for a 50% chance of death in the next 3y no matter what you're offering.
You can have a culture where jobs are treated as sacrosanct as lives, who are nearly so. In a culture like that companies would be extremely cautious about hiring in a way that would make workers overall worse off, and startups with be much less practical. Europe is farther in this direction than the US, though not all the way to what I think you are proposing with your analogy.
No one is saying that jobs should be "treated as sacrosanct as lives". The argument put forward by waylandsmithers is about responsibility and accountability. If we make sea captains legally accountable for the lives they are charged with, why don't we make CEOs accountable for the livelihoods they are responsible for (i.e. that they make decisions about)?
Did you know that the military commander-in-chief and generals do not put their own lives in the fromt of the battle?
Perhaps they should.
The amounts of money involved can absolutely spell life and death for people not lucky enough to have been born into the top 1%.
"White collar crime" generally has vastly broader effects than what we normally think of when we talk about crime; it's just harder to see because the effects are not as immediate or obvious. Livelihoods destroyed by layoffs to juice the stock price; land, water, and air poisoned by pollutants released because paying the fine is cheaper than actually cleaning them up; people dying because they can no longer afford the insulin they need to live after the price was raised absurd amounts purely to increase profits...
Just because the CEOs aren't physically on a ship where everyone's lives depend on making good decisions in times of crisis doesn't mean they aren't responsible for incalculable pain, suffering, misery, and death.
"White collar crime" generally has vastly broader effects than what we normally think of when we talk about crime; it's just harder to see because the effects are not as immediate or obvious. Livelihoods destroyed by layoffs to juice the stock price; land, water, and air poisoned by pollutants released because paying the fine is cheaper than actually cleaning them up; people dying because they can no longer afford the insulin they need to live after the price was raised absurd amounts purely to increase profits...
Just because the CEOs aren't physically on a ship where everyone's lives depend on making good decisions in times of crisis doesn't mean they aren't responsible for incalculable pain, suffering, misery, and death.
Are you saying this Coinbase layoff will likely kill people?
I'm saying any large layoff has a decent chance of making some people homeless—either because they weren't making enough before to save money, or because they were riding an unrealistic expectation of growth (that the company and entire industry are often actively selling you) and bet too much on it (the latter being what I'd guess more likely in this case, based on my assumptions about the kind of money Coinbase would've been paying). And once you're homeless, you're at much higher risk for all kinds of problems, including dying in a variety of unpleasant ways.
This seems highly exaggerated.
If someone really over leveraged themselves so much, at some point you can’t blame their employer.
If someone really over leveraged themselves so much, at some point you can’t blame their employer.
By that theory, Coinbase already saved their lives since they'd be homeless if they weren't hired.
Excuse me, Smithers. Heidi been making that Santazon money for several seasons now. Nina don't pull down Heidi cash and lord knows Making the Cut ain't win no emmys.
The prophetic scene in question: https://youtu.be/u48vYSLvKNQ?t=1
"...and if you excuse me I'm going to go cry myself to sleep on a pillow filled with fiat cash..."
> their failure.”
So he's heaping all of the blame on the terminated employees?
So he's heaping all of the blame on the terminated employees?
It's a quote from the TV show Silicon Valley
Thanks. Never watched it and the site was inaccessible.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You know, I've never actually watched Silicon Valley, but I still recognized the quote because I've caught clips here and there on YouTube. I suppose now would be the time to binge-watch it.
[deleted]
I think any company exploring ways to improve the financial system should be given plenty of space to do so, but I think the fundamental issue facing Coinbase, and all other crypto-based firms is: when will we see mainstream adoption of crypto as something other than asset speculation?
Or, is speculation the only use-case for crypto? Sure we've had example use-cases for crypto as a value store and exchange medium, but outside the bleeding-edge of technology, and away from the VC fever dream (let alone con-artist central), where does crypto fit into society?
There are major incumbent forces all the way up to government that are keen to control the rise of this technology so it's clearly not an easy task, but for the likes of Coinbase to survive I think we need to see real value in using the things you actually trade on their exchange. Unfortunately right now it seems that Coinbase is a company predicated on the assumption that “crypto is going to become the main way to exchange value at some point in the future”.
Companies powered by hype and VC speculation invariably collapse as markets move on, so if I were investing in them I'd be really keen to have them allocate the majority of their resources at pushing crypto adoption into non-investment-based use-cases, which is to say, banks having large crypto teams is much less important than average people actively using crypto for goods and services (if that's to be the dominant use-case for crypto.)
Or, is speculation the only use-case for crypto? Sure we've had example use-cases for crypto as a value store and exchange medium, but outside the bleeding-edge of technology, and away from the VC fever dream (let alone con-artist central), where does crypto fit into society?
There are major incumbent forces all the way up to government that are keen to control the rise of this technology so it's clearly not an easy task, but for the likes of Coinbase to survive I think we need to see real value in using the things you actually trade on their exchange. Unfortunately right now it seems that Coinbase is a company predicated on the assumption that “crypto is going to become the main way to exchange value at some point in the future”.
Companies powered by hype and VC speculation invariably collapse as markets move on, so if I were investing in them I'd be really keen to have them allocate the majority of their resources at pushing crypto adoption into non-investment-based use-cases, which is to say, banks having large crypto teams is much less important than average people actively using crypto for goods and services (if that's to be the dominant use-case for crypto.)
With most technologies, I find the heuristic of "how will this technology help improve your average suburban consumer's life, or those serving them" helpful. Internet? Great. Smartphones? Yep. Electric Vehicles? Kind of.
Crypto has never had a real answer to that question. The opportunities of crypto are things like you owning your money instead of the bank, fast transaction speeds and anonymity - nobody but a tiny percentage of people give a crap about any of this. Certainly not enough to supplant the most prevalent piece of infrastructure in modern society, the fiat.
Crypto has never had a real answer to that question. The opportunities of crypto are things like you owning your money instead of the bank, fast transaction speeds and anonymity - nobody but a tiny percentage of people give a crap about any of this. Certainly not enough to supplant the most prevalent piece of infrastructure in modern society, the fiat.
Don't forget that it's not only a "when we will see" but also a "whether we will see". Changes the economics significantly for investors.
As far as I can see, the business model of cryptocurrency exchanges revolves around the speculation use-case, since they profit from matching buyers and sellers of cryptocurrencies. If cryptocurrencies worked as advertised (i.e. as a peer-to-peer payments system), I don't think there would be much use for exchanges.
[deleted]
Sorry a slight error in the title.
Operating costs reduced by 25%, but it's actually roughly a 20% reduction in workforce (950 employees out of ~4700)
Operating costs reduced by 25%, but it's actually roughly a 20% reduction in workforce (950 employees out of ~4700)
Coinbase has 4700 employees!?!
Like a team of 5 software engineers, and a customer support team of 10, and 1 boss ought to cover it...
Like a team of 5 software engineers, and a customer support team of 10, and 1 boss ought to cover it...
support team of 10? they have 100 million users and sell a not-so-simple product to consumers who often don't understand what they're buying.
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/coinbase-statistics/
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/coinbase-statistics/
businessofapps.com claims they only do 8M transactions per month, and have/had 4500 employees, so 8M transactions / 4.5K employees / 20 working days/month that's 88 transactions to post per day.
They don't need datacenters, quill pens and paper accounting could handle that 200 years ago with about 3 hours work per day.
Generally supermarket cashiers can do somewhat less than 30 transactions per hour, so I think its justified they should be able to do all the accounting manually in three hours.
The numbers do look a bit odd.
They don't need datacenters, quill pens and paper accounting could handle that 200 years ago with about 3 hours work per day.
Generally supermarket cashiers can do somewhat less than 30 transactions per hour, so I think its justified they should be able to do all the accounting manually in three hours.
The numbers do look a bit odd.
Yeah, the right number is probably somewhere between 10 and 4500.
If you can build a coinbase equivalent with 16 people, the real question to ask is why hasn't anybody yet.
I could open a "full service" gas station with dudes to fill the tank and wipe the windshield and upsell services. It varies by state, but nobody put full service gas stations out of business where I live. The market wiped them out; just can't run full service, doesn't mean the workers didn't sweat enough or the market wasn't competitive enough. People won't pay what it costs to run, so they don't run that anymore. Wash your own windshield and pump your own gas.
The other problem is its a form of sophistry to react to "the absolute numbers are awful" with a prayer to the efficient market hypothesis like "why hasn't a more successful competitor arisen". That deflects from the original question in a sophistry manner, not answers it. Sure, I'm a believer too, but can't answer a technical question with a prayer. The original question stands unanswered, why are the absolute numbers so utterly awful?
Note I'm a happy customer, it would be nice for them not to go out of business, but with those numbers...
The other problem is its a form of sophistry to react to "the absolute numbers are awful" with a prayer to the efficient market hypothesis like "why hasn't a more successful competitor arisen". That deflects from the original question in a sophistry manner, not answers it. Sure, I'm a believer too, but can't answer a technical question with a prayer. The original question stands unanswered, why are the absolute numbers so utterly awful?
Note I'm a happy customer, it would be nice for them not to go out of business, but with those numbers...
they run an exchange that is open 24/7. 5 engineers couldn't even handle the operational load.
Does that cover legal/regulatory/compliance?
Of course not. HN Headcount Guy™ sincerely believes anything that isn’t engineering (and perhaps occasionally a single support person who also delivers the catered lunches and does the marketing “work”) doesn’t exist.
Obviously crypto companies can get by without any real regulatory considerations for a while…
I believe Coinbase is the exception here.
Coinbase is a double exception, they didn't just ask for regulatory approval for their lending product, they asked for permission to file the application.
Can't wait for the next round of crypto hype, excited to see mew use cases along with new scams.
Can't wait for the next round of crypto hype, excited to see mew use cases along with new scams.
I guess they need the other 4684 employees for legal and compliance.
[deleted]
I try to keep my calm but it’s a stretch on these topics.
There is nothing ethically superior about any financial manipulation. @sama just raised a multi-billion round on OpenAI. “Open” “AI”. Loopt sold to Greenpoint with thumbs on the scales from both pg and Conway, which is why he’s in a position to do that.
Parsing the details about how wealthy people with the right parents extract wealth is an exercise in parsing minutia.
The chosen get richer. The militant guardians of freedom fight for Drepper’s ideology (he works for Goldman Sachs).
And I’m pretty comfortable with all this: it’s the same as it always was.
Most crypto is a fucking scam. But it’s the same amount of cynical and worse connected than YC.
There is nothing ethically superior about any financial manipulation. @sama just raised a multi-billion round on OpenAI. “Open” “AI”. Loopt sold to Greenpoint with thumbs on the scales from both pg and Conway, which is why he’s in a position to do that.
Parsing the details about how wealthy people with the right parents extract wealth is an exercise in parsing minutia.
The chosen get richer. The militant guardians of freedom fight for Drepper’s ideology (he works for Goldman Sachs).
And I’m pretty comfortable with all this: it’s the same as it always was.
Most crypto is a fucking scam. But it’s the same amount of cynical and worse connected than YC.
[deleted]
hnmods produce amazing community that definitly isnt shit hole
we just do things differnetly here
upper crust of socialm mediaz
we just do things differnetly here
upper crust of socialm mediaz
alanlammiman(1)
irl_chad(31)
I lost a little bit of money investing in crypto on Coinbase (I put about £500 in which shrank to £200 - over the course of past 2 years and for past year I mostly have just had money in sterling - the market looked terrible)
I finally decided yesterday to cash out of coinbase yesterday - they charged me £3 to withdraw my money!!
In the scheme of things I didn't lose that much money - not really. But personally I can't see myself getting back in when Bitcoin goes below 10,000 dollars (which I believe it will in 2023). I think Coinbase share price is heading to junk status. No wonder the employees were selling all their shares when it went public!
Your surprise over a £3 fee strikes me as a perfect illustration of crypto: profoundly naive, inexperienced investors getting a hard lesson in how unregulated markets work.
I hope, some years down the line, you take the broader life lesson that anyone promising you money for nothing does not have your best interests at heart.
I hope, some years down the line, you take the broader life lesson that anyone promising you money for nothing does not have your best interests at heart.
So I don't agree with your view here. The majority of my savings were in index funds which have done very well over the years. Dipping in to a high risk investment is I think perfectly reasonable. What would be insane is if I kept on investing - or continued to do so even now.
But in the spirit of good will I will take the merits of your comment :)
You make it sound like a £3 transaction fee is evidence of some kind of scamminess or preying on naivety but most normal, regulated investment platforms, crypto or not, come with transaction fees, account fees, fund management fees and so on. Usually they are taking a lot more than £3 from you too. That's even before we get into the world of professional financial "advice" and the commissions they just happen to earn when you buy the one they recommend. Compared to all the ways the traditional investment world seeks to milk you, Coinbase's flat fee per trade looks admirably straightforward.
Fees are a more honorable way to keep the lights on than the FTX ‘take the money and run’ business plan.
Mmmm that's a reasonable point - I didn't mind paying fees for the coins, but I do think its a little iffy about fees to withdraw...
On another note, one thing about Coinbase that struck me, was that on the app/website it doesn't actually show you how much money you put in / what the return on your investment is (I used a spreadsheet to track my own investment "success").
I suspect Coinbase does not do this deliberately - as many, many people who invest in Crypto lose money and it doesn't want to highlight this point too much.
On another note, one thing about Coinbase that struck me, was that on the app/website it doesn't actually show you how much money you put in / what the return on your investment is (I used a spreadsheet to track my own investment "success").
I suspect Coinbase does not do this deliberately - as many, many people who invest in Crypto lose money and it doesn't want to highlight this point too much.
£3 fee isn’t a withdrawal fee, it’s a transaction fee to sell your bitcoin for pounds. The actual withdrawal of pounds to you bank account is free.
Likewise, you could withdraw your bitcoin to your own wallet for free. The fee comes when you change from one type of currency to another.
I think the reason they don’t show return on investment is because Coinbase presents itself as an exchange, not an investment platform. The purpose is to facilitate the exchange of currency from one kind to another. They’re not positioning themselves as trying to help you build up retirement nest egg.
Likewise, you could withdraw your bitcoin to your own wallet for free. The fee comes when you change from one type of currency to another.
I think the reason they don’t show return on investment is because Coinbase presents itself as an exchange, not an investment platform. The purpose is to facilitate the exchange of currency from one kind to another. They’re not positioning themselves as trying to help you build up retirement nest egg.
The surprise over the $3 fee indicates just how many tricks of the light are used to hide exactly how bad finance is, then make dishonest comparisons to crypto markets.
In my experience crypto exchanges have far fewer hidden fees than conventional banks do.
All the whales and insiders thank you for your donation of £303 to their net worth.
Lol. I probably shouldn't but I find this quite funny.
I bought some bitc on coinbase in 2015/2016? Around the time that it spiked to 30k and gained some money, but even back then I parted ways with Coinbase anyway, it seemed like a scam made just for them to earn money without risks, like even their quote of a BTC is higher price when you buy and much lower when you sell, and that for me was the breaking point
I had a similar experience to you a few weeks ago. First I paid transaction fees to change my coins into cash, and then Coinbase had the temerity to charge me again to transfer it out! They just had to squeeze a few more dollars out of me on the way out the door. It left a bad taste in my mouth for sure.
Just to clarify - if I were to buy crypto again, I would buy from Coinbase.
I am not positive about the future of crypto though. And I said before it's also telling that I had to use a spreadsheet to look at how much I put in, fees, money lost etc. On Coinbase. Again I suspect it's because a lot of people are losing money and the owners want that information hidden.
I am not positive about the future of crypto though. And I said before it's also telling that I had to use a spreadsheet to look at how much I put in, fees, money lost etc. On Coinbase. Again I suspect it's because a lot of people are losing money and the owners want that information hidden.
Sas_cedric(1)
Firstly, I don't see how Coinbase needs as many people as CME. They're meant to be a disruptive start up they should be lean. Secondly, how the hell do they get those unit economics to work? It should be a trivial job, right. People pay you to trade, so how are they losing so much money!? Well, I guess hiring 4,500 people... I think the idea at this point that Coinbase can get their cost structure down to reasonable numbers making them profitable at lower revenue levels is challenging. It's very hard to put that genie back in the bottle.