An ethical business dilemma: Coinbase criticised for sponsoring a US military parade

The crypto community piled on Coinbase after the American trading platform sponsored the US Army parade on 14 June.

“Special thanks to our sponsor: Coinbase” pic.twitter.com/wtcZbHLIt2

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 14, 2025

During the event, the host offered “special thanks” to the exchange for its support.

Coinbase became a sponsor after donating to America250 — a nonpartisan, year-long initiative whose aim is to organise celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the United States.

Other backers of America250 include the drinks maker Coca-Cola, the investment bank Goldman Sachs and the military contractor Palantir. Palantir was also singled out for thanks during the parade.

According to a 2020 blog post by the platform’s CEO, Brian Armstrong, Coinbase intended to “minimally focus” on political issues and “not advocate for any particular idea or candidate”. In comments to Decrypt, representatives of the exchange said they had not violated their previous pledges to remain apolitical.

At the same time, the platform became one of the largest crypto sponsors of Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration, donating $1m.

The ethics question

Debate over the parade’s “politicisation” sparked a row in the community, though most still criticised the exchange. The fact the military event fell on Trump’s birthday added fuel.

Lobbying for adoption and better regulation is important. Funding a 45m sloppy military parade is not only not aligned with mission but frankly ridiculous. Someone lost the grip there.

— maria paula (@MPtherealmvp) June 16, 2025

In a comment to ForkLog, libertarian economist and Austrian-school proponent Yevgeny Romanenko said Coinbase’s actions were “on the verge of a foul”, comparing them to the presidential family’s memecoins — TRUMP and MELANIA.

“I would consider this plain Coinbase marketing aimed at patriotic Americans. And if we raise the question of betraying the ideals of decentralisation, is not the very fact of centralised Coinbase’s existence a betrayal of them? A rhetorical question,” Romanenko added.

In his view, the whole situation is “the result of the masses’ consistent rejection of bitcoin’s ideals”.

Even so, the goal of business is profit, Romanenko noted. The ethical dimension cannot be discarded either, but it is weighed only insofar as it helps or hinders the company.

He said this environment creates conditions in which crypto firms “navigate” between community opinion and the temptation to use state resources, including regulation, for growth.

“All in all, it is a slippery slope of ethical compromises, and once you step onto it there is no turning back. To understand where it leads, I recommend Friedrich von Hayek’s bestseller ‘The Road to Serfdom’. The only counter is for the community to defend the ideals. For example, by refusing to use the products of such companies,” the speaker explained.

Bitcoin versus war

Adam Cochran, a partner at the venture firm Cinneamhain Venture, plans to exit all his Coinbase-related positions after the exchange’s participation in the military parade.

Made the decision today that I’ll be exiting my Coinbase positions (stocks/bonds) and keeping my assets elsewhere for the time being.

I’ve been a Coinbase customer for over a decade now, and appreciate the early work they did in the space.

And while I don’t agree with being… pic.twitter.com/WsuoLjR2pu

— Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) (@adamscochran) June 16, 2025

“Sponsoring a military parade in a divided country, where views on cryptocurrency already differ, does not align with a [neutrality] policy; and even if it weren’t odd and disgusting, it is simply bad marketing that harms industry adoption,” he added.

A user going by Captain Nemo called Coinbase’s actions an “insult” to the entire industry. In his words, cryptocurrency arose from “the ideals of decentralisation, individual sovereignty and freedom from repressive state control, not to funnel resources into institutions whose core purpose is tied to violence and the interruption of life”.

“A cultural theorist would say: war is a kind of cultural dialogue when, for various reasons, the parties are incapable of any other dialogue. A libertarian would say: war is a form of aggression. And one must distinguish aggression against a non‑aggressor (prohibited by the principle of NAP) and defence against an aggressor (a duty of a free person who observes NAP). Violent expropriation of property is a kind of aggression against property, that is, a subtype of war. It is usually waged by the state against society with weapons in the form of taxes and money printing,” Romanenko noted.

He stressed that bitcoin was created by those who recognised such a threat (from the works of Murray Rothbard and other Austro‑libertarians), so the first cryptocurrency was conceived as a means of protection against it.

“In this sense, bitcoin can be called an ‘anti-war’ development. More precisely, bitcoin is a means of protecting a person’s money from aggression by the state or third parties. An important consequence: using cryptocurrency not for this purpose, but for fiat trading, is a rejection of its ideals,” the interlocutor concluded.

In June, the US Department of Defense’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office signed a $200m contract with OpenAI.