Kraken CEO defends his ‘back to dictatorship’ crackdown

Jesse Powell says the crypto exchange’s cultural revolution was necessary.

A photograph of Jesse Powell, CEO of Kraken Bitcoin Exchange

"Some people feel they should be able to be whatever they want to be in the workplace. But there's a line," Powell told Protocol.

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Kraken CEO Jesse Powell found himself under fire last month for provocative remarks he made that kicked off a contentious workplace battle and shined a light on the crypto exchange’s distinctive corporate culture.

A New York Times report based on leaked Slack messages and employee interviews accused Powell of making insensitive comments on gender and race, sparking heated conversations within Kraken. Powell responded forcefully, laying out new ground rules and principles in an attempt to define the way he wanted the company to operate — sharply at odds in some aspects with the tech industry’s standard practices.

“[P]eople get triggered by everything and can't conform to basic rules of honest debate. Back to dictatorship,” Powell said in a tweet.

Kraken invited employees who were uncomfortable with the company’s culture to leave with four months’ pay in a program called “jet ski,” one of many nautical allusions common to a company named after a mythical sea monster.

In an interview with Protocol, Powell defended his workplace crackdown against critics, including DEI advocates, saying it was necessary for a huge global, diverse company grappling with a crypto downturn. He also called for his workers to give him “the benefit of the doubt,” a request whose very framing the less privileged might find troubling.

This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.

How many Kraken employees have taken the “jet skis”?

It's definitely under 5% of the total, and less than 1% took it for stated culture or mission differences. We'd already planned to hire 500-plus roles in the second half of the year.

Why did you call it the “jet ski” program?

We just try to have everything have a nautical theme. It seemed like a fun, exciting thing. It's not dark and depressing. It's like, “You can ride a jet ski off to your next adventure.”

Looking back, are there things that you said or did in connection with the controversy that you wish you hadn’t?

I'm a very transparent person. I can crack a joke from time to time. I don't take myself too seriously. I think I could have said things in a way that was more sterile, much less interesting, much more boring.

When I'm speaking to people, I'm generally not thinking of myself like I'm a politician and I need to say this in a way that's going to be appealing to everybody. Some things you can say plainly.

I just saw this joke on Twitter. Someone said, “Twitter's the only place where you can make a very clear statement about something and still have it [be] misunderstood.” I use the example of writing the sentence “I like pancakes, period.” And someone replies, “Why do you hate waffles? Why would you disparage waffles like this?”

I wouldn't go back and change my attitude about it. I don't want to become completely, fully censored. I want to be able to share what I'm thinking with the company. And I hope that the company can give me the benefit of the doubt when I'm saying something that I'm not trying to attack people. If I say something about one group of people, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm singling them out.

I think there are probably some things that could have been said more politically, but I think that's not really me.

Can you give me an example?

There was something that I said along the lines of “I think pirates look really cool. I think the pirate aesthetic is really cool. Unfortunately, American women have been brainwashed to think that the pirate aesthetic is not cool to my detriment as a guy who likes to look like a pirate.”

That was taken way out of context. I was making a joke about how my own appearance is appreciated by women in America.

Most of the people who took offense to it are no longer at the company. So hopefully we've kind of raised the average sense of humor inside the company in the last few weeks.

The message you tried to convey was “Hey, we need to be united and focused.” But what also stood out was the line “back to dictatorship,” which painted a portrait of an arrogant, intolerant company.

I guess some people interpreted having rules as being arrogant or being authoritarian. I don't know if these people are cut out to be working in any company. Some people don't like rules at all. I think they probably should have asked about the rules before they joined the company.

The culture document goes a long way to making sure that we're aligned with people coming in. We have certain expectations of people, and if they want to work in a place that doesn't have any kind of rules or where they disagree with the policy, they should probably find somewhere else to work.

I don't know what to say to people who feel like they deserve some kind of a workplace where they don't have to adhere to policies. If that comes off as authoritarian or whatever, you know, I guess that's fine.

I think I could have said things in a way that was more sterile, much less interesting, much more boring.

When I said “back to dictatorship,” what I was referring to was that I had given people the chance to discuss a policy decision with me. A lot of people took the opportunity to just present their personal feelings about something, what they would do in a certain situation as an individual.

And I decided that basically having an open conversation was just not possible because the loudest voices basically drowned out everyone else. On top of that, when thinking about policy at the company, it's not about what I would do individually in my personal life or whatever. It's about what I can impose on 3,000 other people to mandate: “Do this or you're going to be fired.” It’s just a very different question.

You can't please everyone. We're certainly not trying to please everyone. We want people working at the company who are a good fit, and that's probably not 100% of the population.

How has this controversy affected your business, especially at a time when crypto is in a deep slump?

We've been through many crypto bear markets in the past. This is, like, No. 4 or 5. The company is 11 years old. We've done this several times. It doesn't really faze us. We're running a marathon here. We're not living month to month or quarter to quarter. We are looking at several years out.

Bear markets are great because you can take your eye off of what's happening by the minute. Usually in a bull market, you're stress-testing everything. You don't have enough customer support agents. You don't have enough servers in the data center or whatever. Things are just catching on fire all over the place.

So you can go from kind of firefighting back to building things according to your road map, which hopefully prepares you for the next bull market.

From our perspective, the bear markets are great. You get people coming into the industry who are really passionate about it. They're not just chasing the next rocket ship or looking to get into a company right before they go public. You get people who are gonna be there throughout the next downturn.

We saw last year that the space was so hot. We had so many people coming in from everywhere who weren't necessarily passionate about crypto at all. And when things went south, the first time they ever saw a crypto bear market, people were a little bit scared by it. Some of those people have left, but it's fine.

Jesse Powell, CEO of Kraken Bitcoin Exchange, working on his computer. Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Your rival Coinbase went through a similar situation a couple of years ago. Brian Armstrong put out a memo saying the company had an “apolitical culture.” Were there lessons from the Coinbase experience that helped you navigate this crisis?

We learned from that that there weren't actually that many people that ended up leaving Coinbase. Usually it turns out that it's a very small minority of people who are responsible for the most distractions in the company.

While we haven't taken that approach of going just completely apolitical, that would sort of be the next stop.

We're going to try now to have a cohesive culture where people who are still here hopefully are resilient, are able to tolerate a debate about politics or something and not get completely distracted from work.

But yeah, the next stop would be something more severe, like what Coinbase has done and just ban a bunch of topics from being discussed.

You’re not there yet.

Now, we're not there yet. And I hope we don't get there, because a lot of people — especially in a fully remote company — they're just in company chat rooms 16 hours of the day.

It's not just like you clock in and clock out. They might be there during their work shift, and then they're there for another eight hours just hanging out because their friends are all in the company chat room.

I think people get a lot of enjoyment from being able to socialize and talk about current political issues and things like that with their coworkers.

We have people in 70-plus countries. It's a great opportunity to learn from people what's happening in their part of the world and how they see things differently. It's great to get all these different perspectives.

We would lose out on a huge amount of value if we were not allowed to talk about our culture, cultural differences — things like that. It's also helpful to be able to understand that from a marketing perspective, from a user research perspective, for product development, to understand how people are different around the world, especially as it relates to money.

I hope we don't have to go totally extreme like that.

We're probably one of the largest fully remote companies in the world. And probably one of the most diverse companies in the world in terms of the distribution of people across countries, different ethnicities, different upbringings. I've also traveled a lot, and that has also greatly and kind of informed my perspective on this.

I think sometimes people forget that America's problems are not the world's problems. We need to consider what are the cultural norms all over the world. If we want to be exclusive and we want to say the American way of doing things, or the Silicon Valley way of doing things, is just how everyone has to do it, I think we're going to lose out on a lot of people that maybe have different standards or would do things differently.

So we try to be more flexible. Anytime you interfere in a system by introducing a law and just saying, like, “OK, everyone just has to do this now. No exceptions. This is the law,” you risk a lot of unintended consequences with that.

One example that came up in the New York Times piece was the debate about pronouns. We had gotten some complaints about recruiters who were asking job candidates for their pronouns.

It's not something that the company ever asked for. This wasn't coming down from HR; it wasn't an official policy. It was just some individual’s thought that it would be inclusive to ask candidates for their pronouns. And they just started doing it without thinking about whether or not it would be appreciated by people of other cultures or people who don't necessarily speak English so well.

The policy that I landed on was when you're interfacing with someone outside of the company, especially someone who is in another country entirely, from a different cultural background who maybe doesn't speak English at the same level of proficiency, we're just not going to ask for that information.

If they offer it to you then fine, we can use it. But we're not going to ask for it because some people may feel uncomfortable by it. Some people may feel, “Oh, is there a right or wrong answer to this? Do I have to ask you about your pronouns back? And if I get your pronouns wrong, am I not going to get this job?”

The law that I chose was something that I think is the most fair and maintainable across a global operation across 3,000 people, interviewing thousands of people all the time. Don't ask and don't tell if you're talking to someone outside the company, because you just never know.

We want to have a good user experience for people. Just like when you check into a hotel, you don't expect the concierge or the receptionist to ask you for your pronouns. You might feel it’s kind of an invasion of privacy. It's like, I just want to get checked into my hotel room.

But does that send a message to people for whom issues around gender identity are important that their concerns are not important?

I think outside of work there are all kinds of social issues that people should be concerned with. But inside the workplace — just to take an extreme example, imagine you're working at Disneyland and your job is to be Mickey Mouse. You're putting on the costume and you're going around the theme park, interacting with people.

Should it be allowable for you to take off your Mickey Mouse head and say, “Hi, I'm really Jesse. I want you to know about my identity. I'm 41 years old. I'm a male. These are my sexual preferences. These are my pronouns.” Then you put your hat back on and you go about your business.

You have a job to do. Your job is to be Mickey Mouse and make everyone believe that you're Mickey Mouse and to put your own identity in the back seat while you're in the theme park. And you can be whoever you want when you leave.

Some people feel they should be able to be whatever they want to be in the workplace. But there's a line. We all put on some kind of act in the workplace. We have our work persona. We're much more professional. We're not nearly as casual as we are with our friends or family.

I think the more you’re external-facing, the more you're talking to the customer, the more inhibited you have to be. There's a brand behind this whole thing. We're all trying to be representatives of the brand.

When we talk to people externally, we want them to come away feeling like I understand what the Kraken brand is. I feel like I'm gonna get a consistent experience no matter which customer service agent I talk to. I feel like I'm not going to be offered unnecessary information. I'm not going to be made to feel uncomfortable. I'm not going to be asked for personal information about sexual preferences or things like that.

It's not appropriate in a meeting to just jump on the table and dance around. Someone might say, “Well, I identify as a professional dancer. Sometimes I feel the need to dance, and I need to dance right now in the middle of this meeting.”

Some people feel they should be able to be whatever they want to be in the workplace. But there's a line.

I would say, “Well, this is probably not the workplace for you. And let's find a way for you to be happy. Maybe you want to go get a job on Broadway or something.”

But if you feel the need to burst out dancing in the middle of meetings, it's maybe not a fit. I hate to tell you who you can't be at work, but we’ve got to have rules for the sake of moving things forward. People have varying ranges of expectations about what they should be allowed to do at work. It doesn't always match up.

Have there been people you wanted to hire, like a star engineer, who said no, because of the declarations you've made recently?

I don't know of anyone new coming in that at the last minute said that they're out. But we have had some great people who were really skilled leave recently for stated culture/mission reasons.

In the wake of the controversy.

Yeah. Taking the jet ski. It's a bummer. It's a bummer.

It's happened in the past as well where you get these quote-unquote genius [a--holes]. The typical example is some 10x engineer who is amazing. He gets done 10 times what any other software developer does. But no one can work with him. He's a complete maniac. He constantly insults people. It sucks to lose somebody like that. But ultimately, you know, what matters more is team cohesion.

We also don't want a single individual who, if they get hit by a bus, we blow up the whole company.

On the other end of the spectrum is maybe the genius eggshell or genius snowflake. The person who basically has a resiliency level of zero. Anytime the wind blows, they are just completely distracted. They lose a week of productivity. They can't focus on their work because of a conversation that's happening in the far corner of a company chat room. They can't help themselves from engaging in it.

I think both of those [kinds of] people would have a hard time working here at Kraken.

Of course, you want very talented people. I hate to use the dating analogy, but it's not just the attractiveness score that matters, right? It's how compatible you are with this person, with your religious beliefs or your work schedules or whether or not you want to have children. A lot of other things matter than just someone's basic kind of ability to perform.

On one side, we're not going to tolerate someone who's an asshole. On the other end of the spectrum, we've got people in 70-plus countries speaking 50-plus languages. People are just bound to share perspectives, and to misspeak because they're not native English speakers, that other people might find controversial or that people might be offended by.

If you're traveling a lot all over the world, you have to accept that when you go into a new country with a completely different culture, that you have to be willing to just accept. I wouldn't spit on the ground. I think that's rude. But, you know, in this country, everyone does it. It's commonly accepted. Chewing gum is illegal in Singapore. There's different norms all over the world. Showing the bottom of your foot to someone in the Arab world is an insult. But we do that all the time, you know, in the United States when we cross our legs.

Given that the company is this huge melting pot of people, there's no one culture defining the company. I think people have to be a bit thick-skinned and be able to acknowledge that “I'm going to encounter things that I might be a little bit uncomfortable with,” but that's actually one of the benefits of being exposed to all of this. I get all these different perspectives from the world. I get to learn things and you get to appreciate the way you do things back at home, or maybe you realize, “Oh, these guys do it better than the way that I always thought we should do it.”

So, yeah, we definitely lost some people who, if they could have been more resilient or if they were better aligned with the culture, they would have been great. Very talented people. No hard feelings or anything. I'm sure they'll find another great place to work that's just a better fit.


Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.


Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories