It's going to be a rough time for anyone who had high hopes for their equity compensation.
If you don't recognize the name, he founded Vanguard and the first index fund.
But everybody assumes a risk level they’re comfortable with, this works for me.
Now that even Apple and Google are well off peak, I’m super curious what happens next.
(The numbers may be different if you look solely at recent buyers in a certain limited set of neighborhoods.)
At current housing prices my rent is 1/3 of a mortgage payment. Buying in this market doesn’t make sense.
All these employees could just leave if they wanted to. If you are a public company and your worth is so heavily dependent on talent, how do you mitigate that risk?
Is there a future for football player style contracts for engineers, where you are tied in to a team for N years, and with a requirement that another team has to pay big money for your contract if they want you to transfer?
i.e. golden handcuff equity grants with vesting schedules? Top performers in highly demanded areas can have some or all of their remaining equity bought out.
It definitely ties the value of the contract to the stock price. In a way the company is leveraging its stock - significant declines hurt talent retention, and significant gains help it.
I’m talking about Company X having to pay off Cloudflare-the-business if they want Team Cloudflare’s top network engineer to transfer to Team Company X, mid contract.
Network engineers are comparatively far more expendable and easily replaceable. It's not nearly as hard to learn as NFL level football.
How many Principle Engineers are there at the FAANGs? How important are they to the business, and how long did it take them to get to that level, in their careers?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth
($NET bagholder)
Is it a correction to true value or an over-reaction to market sentiment?
> They are like the water supply, to the restaurant.
Even actual water companies get overvalued. Just look at American Water Works or Essential Utilities Inc stock.
Good, let it fall much more.
Coinbase was never a darling for anything but the out of touch uninitiated (marks) in the 'crypto markets' because only MTGOX was ever this incompetent and amazingly useless at what they do. Be it from canceled purchases, reversed transactions, inappropriately flagged, suspended, or canceled accounts etc... There history is one of perpetual incompetence with little to save them other than being backed by the tech oligarchs and VC.
Armstrong's appearance on the all in podcast just reminded me why their is so much distrust in this space as a result of people like him, all they wanted to do was virtue signal to one another about being a 'non-woke' worksplace. But they never addressed this very clear and glaring issue: the IPO was over-inflated and their relevance in this space is based on convenience of an ever smaller demographic. I wish they got to how and why they acquired 21, but that would require a level of transparency that I don't think he is capable of.
I hope Jack eats Armstrong's fucking lunch and just fights a war of attrition from his cut of the Twitter Buy out by Elon.
I don't think there is a place for Armstrong in this ecosystem since he sided with Ver and set us back for several years, but it's with absolute schadenfreude that I look at this YC backed unicorn go down in flames.
Just like how Altman turned out to be a conman pushing Worldcoin, Armstrong is of same SV insider ilk.
What that looks like maybe horrible since they hold so much BTC, despite supposedly being advocates of the BCASH fork during the Segwit/USAF wars.
Where I felt it was a but empty was on the part where he talked about the mission. I felt like he's trying to find a reason for them to exist when in fact their success until today is from retail investors pumping Crypto. I don't think there's much good in the world coming from their actions.
PS I don't have any Coinbase shares.
Are you at all involved in the Fintech or Bitcoin ecosystem? This is a critical component of why I view him as such, his co-founder is ex Goldman Sachs. He is backed by the SV VC Powerhouses that these 3 supposedly lambast, but have had dealings with in the past (Sequoia et al).
> I saw Armstrong as a driven guy that puts business first. I don't think the "non-woke" communication was intentional, it was forced. The guy wanted the company to move forward and saw himself discussing other things that were not important for the future of the company.
That means his optics worked, likely only on the uninitiated to this space because this was extremely political in nature, again look back to the Segwit/USAF wars we went through. It's all there, Armstrong sided with a bunch of conmen for his own personal gain and still has one of the largest BTC holdings. This was the equivalent of insider trading on top of racketeering.
> Where I felt it was a but empty was on the part where he talked about the mission. I felt like he's trying to find a reason for them to exist when in fact their success until today is from retail investors pumping Crypto. I don't think there's much good in the world coming from their actions.
This is a matter of interpretation, and depending on what period you're talking about in Coinbase's history it can vastly differ: initially they were onboarding many more into something seemingly too arcane for the average retail customer to grasp after the collapse of MTGOX this was necessary as most exchanges operated on too far of the fringes. What they did was simplify this for the layman, who couldn't understand the initial complexity of the tech: you use to have to run your own node on QT before webwallets/mobile wallets were a thing. This was daunting for me when I began, too, but I unlike most became obsessed what this tech's possibility ever since and it began my career into tech.
I won't go into why Bitcoin has helped many more than the average affluent HN tech worker will ever grasp here, but in short their ability to onboard many into this ecosystem allowed for immense upward mobility for generations that have been only marginalized and relegated to poverty in even developed nations due to inflation and higher costs of living and stagnant, if not negative/declining wages relative to expenses.
Coinbase many lists alts, most of which are pump and dump schemes for sure, but the fact remains that even in this current down-turn if you DCA into BTC for several years prior to 2021 you'd still be looking at really nice returns.
I'M MAKING IT VERY CLEAR I WANT TO SEE THE DEMISE OF COINBASE!
I wont bore you with the tech side either, frankly I think it's not worth my time and you can look at my post history of you want more context about why that is, but the short of it is Armstrong represents a point in which VC and it's expand and moat to IPO and cash model was institutionalized in what was before fertile ground for experimentation trying to move away from this model--BTC-e still remained the most reliable exchange until it was seized by the Feds outside of it's jurisdiction.
I swear, we can write like 50 movies of just the last 13 years of BTC history, but all anyone wants to focus on is Silkroad.
I agree with you but I took parent to imply startups & options
I'm surprised Google hasn't been more aggressive in this space, but Google cloud strategy has never made terrific sense to me.