In a bold and controversial move, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong took to X yesterday, declaring his intent to boycott Milbank. This decision stems from the firm’s recent hiring of Gurbir Grewal, the former SEC enforcement chief, as a partner in its New York office. While concerns regarding the revolving door between regulatory watchdogs and the very entities they oversee are indeed legitimate, Armstrong appears less focused on these ethical implications and more inclined to chastise Biglaw firms for associating with figures linked to recent waves of crypto regulation.

The tension between the crypto industry and the SEC has been palpable, as the regulator continues to scrutinize the dual identity of cryptocurrencies. On one hand, they are often touted as “just a currency,” yet simultaneously marketed as the next big investment opportunity promising astronomical returns. This juxtaposition raises eyebrows and questions about their classification, particularly when many crypto aficionados seem more motivated by the prospect of wealth rather than actual utility.

Coinbase’s call to isolate firms like Milbank echoes a sentiment reminiscent of another tech titan, Elon Musk. A few years back, Musk made headlines by insisting that Cooley LLC fire an associate who had previously worked at the SEC or risk losing Tesla’s business. Cooley, steadfast in its principles, opted against accommodating Musk’s demands. It’s ironic that Armstrong now engages in similar tactics while decrying “cancel culture,” seemingly when the shoe is on the other foot.

Furthermore, Musk’s ongoing legal battles concerning boycotts of X advertisers have added layers of complexity to this discourse. He argues that encouraging such boycotts amounts to illegal tampering, while at the same time orchestrating an environment where spurning regulatory alumni is deemed acceptable. It appears that the principle of “free speech” extends selectively, favoring boycotts that align with one’s own interests while condemning those that do not.

From a public relations standpoint, Coinbase’s position could prove counterproductive. Declaring a refusal to collaborate with anyone who has enforced regulations against fraudulent activities related to cryptocurrencies sends an unflattering message. To avoid tarnishing its reputation, Coinbase might consider a more nuanced approach—one that expresses a commitment to safeguarding users from scams while valuing the insights of experienced regulators who can help identify unscrupulous actors.

Nonetheless, Armstrong’s proposal remains a legitimate exercise of his rights. Individuals and businesses are entitled to make decisions that align with their preferences and values, including the decision to distance themselves from individuals previously associated with regulatory bodies. However, one must recognize the inherent paradox in this approach: the same principles that allow Armstrong to advocate for boycotts also apply to his adversaries.