You called them lazy and their statements fluff, and implied that they don't care about their existing employees, when they've just done something positive and you have no specific information about it.
A more charitable interpretation is easy: since they've just done something good for new employees, there may be be a constraint that makes it not as easy to do for everyone. I see no reason, other than what Max Scheler called the "compulsion to detract", to assume they don't care about their existing employees—it would be incongruent with what they're announcing, plus dumb.
It's fine to raise a question, but the willful sourness that wants to tear down a positive thing and turn it into a negative one is something we need less of in HN comments. This is a particularly good thread not to do that in, because the OP is a datapoint in a significant emerging trend about employee compensation. It deserves a serious, undistorted discussion.
It's not dismissal for the sake of dismissal. It's not even dismissal. It's pointing out incongruities in the corporate speech. There was enough specific information in this post by the CEO of Coinbase to at least speculate and seriously consider my scenario.
I was wrong about the possibility of it being a way to push early employees out. It's rather the opposite (duh! that is ostensibly why these ideas are being experimented with); Coinbase may decide that it wants to keep its early employees locked in.
If these actions are being taken in support of employees, why not take a comprehensive approach that solves the entire problem? Or at least actually promise that the entire solution will follow shortly instead of saying it is only being considered.
Anyway, I find the desire to reduce perceived negativity as misguided. The risk of an amplifying echochamber is real. Rather, it seems we should address root causes rather than superficial perceptions.
Where am I wrong?