>Second, if you have no confidence in the execs or CEO of a company then why are you working at that company? Quit and find a company to work at that you believe in!
This comment is really, really tone-deaf. People can believe strongly in the vision and mission of a company while also feeling strongly that upper leadership is steering it in the wrong direction and/or making decisions that negatively impact the company's mission.
Exactly. I remember when ponytail became the CEO at Sun. Most of Sun employees loved Sun to a level that hasn't been experienced anywhere else, while hating the new CEO.
Interesting. When I learned about Ponytail (Jonathan Schwartz, possibly spelled incorrectly), I perceived him as the guy who would rescue Sun. I still remember his presentation of Looking Glass - it felt so modern. Little did I know...
> People can believe strongly in the vision and mission of a company while also feeling strongly that upper leadership is steering it in the wrong direction
Clearly that is the case here. CEO really comes off as if he’s living in a fantasy world here.
Which isn’t surprising given he started a crypto company.
It's wierd tho because it's not ENTIRELY tone-deaf. When i was reading it i would agree wholehearitly with some, and wince at others.
If he would have left it at these two points and immeditaly called a company all hands:
>First of all, if you want to do a vote of no confidence, you should do it on me and not blame the execs. Who do you think is running this company? I was a little offended not to be included :)
> Our culture is to praise in public, and criticize in private. Posting this publicly is also deeply unethical because it harms your fellow co-workers, along with shareholders and customers.
> But wait, you bluster, the custodial agreement clearly says that I am the owner, that it’s my property, that I retain title to it. Yup, but that’s not how the law actually works. Just because they wrote that doesn’t mean it’s true.
> In fact, the exchanges are lulling the consumers with language claiming that the consumer "owns" the coins, when in fact the legal treatment is quite likely to be different in bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, it is likely to be treated as a debtor-creditor relationship, not a custodial (bailment) relationship.
> Not only are the customers likely mere creditors, but they are also likely general unsecured creditors, which means they will have to wait at the back of the line for repayment with everyone else. They will share on a pro rata basis whatever assets are leftover (if any) after the secured creditors and the priority creditors (including the expenses of running the bankruptcy) get paid, and any payment might not be for quite a while. That’s not a happy to place to be. Recoveries could be pennies on the dollar.
Your citation refers to the status of customers with respect to other creditors.
It says diddly squat about shareholders, who are below creditors in the event of a bankruptcy. Because, in a corporate bankruptcy, shareholders generally lose their investment.
Absent bankruptcy, fiduciary duty to shareholders is prioritized over creditor's interests. In bankruptcy, customers will be screwed over to benefit the other creditors, not to benefit the shareholders as I mistakenly said.
Absent bankruptcy, fiduciary duty to shareholders is prioritized over creditor's interests.
No, this is still wrong. Shareholders are not prioritized over creditors, at any time. Shareholders are the least important stakeholders in a corporation, because by virtue of their limited investment, they have the least at risk.
Probably gonna get blacklisted by someone for this, but it’s astonishing to me that people can (with a straight face) say this at one moment then at another claim there’s no reason software engineers should ever unionize since they get paid well.
That argument really falls flat when you realize that this guy is the co-founder and CEO, i.e. he was already there and in charge when these people decided to join him.
If you don't like a company's leadership, obviously don't go work there. If you do, then decide you don't like them, obviously you quit. A 5-year old could understand that. Though it's beyond the anarchist collective on HN, apparently.
When you have poured your life energy out creating technology for a business you believe in and find to be a force for good, it is hard when business people come in and systematically uproot all the good. Yes, one must leave, but one leaves behind a lot of good work.
This comment is really, really tone-deaf. People can believe strongly in the vision and mission of a company while also feeling strongly that upper leadership is steering it in the wrong direction and/or making decisions that negatively impact the company's mission.