When a CEO requires 8 twitter posts[1] to essentially convey the message "Don't worry about this legal clause", it sort of has the opposite effect on me.
[1]: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/15242334800407101...
[1]: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/15242334800407101...
Write a memo, have the lawyers review it, post it on Coinbase.com, tweet a link, do a press release, etc.
Edit: All those maybe's and probably's are the most troublesome part though.
Before reading that tweet chain I was on the “SEC always requires horribly pessimistic outlooks” and now I’m in the “they’re going bankrupt very soon” camp.
> Your funds are safe at Coinbase, just as they’ve always been.
You won't lose your funds, don't worry.
> For our retail customers, we’re taking further steps to update our user terms such that we offer the same protections to those customers in a black swan event. We should have had these in place previously, so let me apologize for that.
Unless we have your keys, in which case I'm sorry we're not protecting you yet (but don't worry, everything's fine).
> We have no risk of bankruptcy
Said directly after their worst quarter to date. Always a lie regardless.
> however we included a new risk factor based on an SEC requirement called SAB 121, which is a newly required disclosure for public companies that hold crypto assets for third parties.
A rule made specifically for their type of companies that clarifies risks of storing assets in a non regulated bank.. somehow shouldn't make you scared that your assets might get taken away since it's very "unlikely".
In said earnings report, they:
- Posted a net loss of $430m (defying analyst expectations of a profit)
- reported a decrease in monthly active users.
- reported a decrease in transaction volume.
Their bonds have been downgraded, they are facing increased financial regulation and two of the largest stablecoins have become unpegged in the last few days.
Coinbase then files an SEC disclosure stating in plain terms that it will use the assets of its users to pay off secured creditors in the event of a bankruptcy.
His twitter thread was definitely not a reasonable response.
i recently experienced a ~20 tweet "story" that was explaining a pretty serious and important shift in the posting parties operations. it was the first time i recall ever having encountered this sort of "tweet" and, at least to me, it did not seem like an ideal or effective means of communication.
i get that they want to reach their audience and that's what i feel like twitter is good, well, probably the best at. the whole intent of the platform had always been geared toward sending short, articulate messages. a substance-filled, important message like this one and the one i had to read before no doubt took a few "practice runs in the mirror", so to speak. i read both of these messages from the comfort of my desktop PC using nitter. as difficult as that was, i can't imagine having view it using a phone.
regardless of the topic of the message, my thoughts are, if you have something to say, say it in a single tweet with a link to an officially hosted post or webpage. any more than that, especially on any sort of usual basis, is not only inconvenient for both parties involved, but confusing, unprofessional, and, in a lot of cases, like you said, quite off-putting.
It’s so common there’s bots that place the thread posts on a single page.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/25/21152579/twitter-thread-e...