Considerable discussion has centered on the open letter published by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong almost two weeks ago, which effectively prohibits political advocacy within the workplace, as he views it as disruptive. He also explicitly stated that staff members who disagreed with this decision—and he anticipated some would—were welcome to resign.

“I understand that our stance won’t appeal to everyone and may generate debate. I expect that many will not concur, and some employees may choose to leave. I also anticipate that portions of what I’ve stated will be misunderstood, either intentionally or unintentionally. However, I am confident this is the correct course for Coinbase, positioning us for sustained success, and I would prefer to be forthright and transparent about this rather than be ambiguous and work within a company lacking alignment,” he explained.

In response to what appeared to be an immediate negative reaction, Armstrong distributed a separate, internal communication the following day outlining severance packages for employees who were dissatisfied and considering departure. Coinbase demonstrated a willingness to be quite generous, providing four months’ salary as severance for those with less than three years of service, and six months’ severance for longer-tenured employees. (It is worth noting that Coinbase also allows employees up to seven years to exercise their stock options.)

Whether Armstrong predicted that over 60 employees out of Coinbase’s 1,200-person workforce would accept this offer remains known only to him. As he revealed in a subsequent post yesterday, that is the number of individuals who had notified the company by the October 7th deadline of their intention to resign, and Coinbase anticipates this figure will increase slightly, based on a “small number” of ongoing discussions.

Regardless, if I were in Armstrong’s position, I would likely be somewhat concerned by this number. Although relatively small in relation to the company’s overall goals, it represents over 60 individuals who will have Coinbase listed on their resumes, possess valuable internal knowledge of the company, and potentially have financial resources, stemming from their severance and equity.

Perhaps more concerningly, these departing employees may harbor some resentment towards a company that initially presented itself as transformative, then altered its agreement with them during a challenging period for many.

This dissatisfaction—if it exists—could potentially manifest in information leaks to the media, although it is presumed that each employee signed a comprehensive non-disparagement agreement upon their departure.

A greater risk is that one or more of these former employees might establish their own cryptocurrency-focused ventures, or alternatively, join competing firms that could benefit from their expertise. (Enforcement of non-compete agreements is notoriously difficult in California.) As cryptocurrency proponents often point out, the decentralized finance landscape is still in its early stages of development.

Undoubtedly, challenging Coinbase’s position is a significant undertaking at this juncture. Two years ago, when the company completed a $300 million Series E funding round, it achieved a post-money valuation exceeding $8 billion, placing it well ahead of numerous other cryptocurrency exchanges.

Regardless of one’s opinion on Armstrong’s new policy, few founders possess the capabilities to build a company as robust and rapidly as he has.

Nevertheless, it is common for individuals to launch companies with the intention of surpassing existing ones. This is a natural human tendency.

Considering that several former Coinbase employees have already secured funding for new projects after leaving Coinbase, coupled with the substantial amount of investment capital currently available, the possibility of this occurring to Coinbase as a result of Armstrong’s memo and its consequences may be limited.

However, it is not nonexistent.