However, Armstrong clarified that AI-generated code is not uniformly applied across the exchange, stressing that reviews and human oversight remain critical. He said:
“Obviously it needs to be reviewed and understood, and not all areas of the business can use AI-generated code. But we should be using it responsibly as much as we possibly can.”
Armstrong added that employees who resisted the mandate were dismissed, signaling how central AI has become to Coinbase’s engineering strategy.
Armstrong’s push quickly drew mixed reactions from the crypto and tech communities. Security specialists voiced concern that handing such a large share of mission-critical code to AI could expose Coinbase to vulnerabilities.
“I’m not sure ‘40% of our code is written by AI’ is what I want to hear from a place that stores financial assets.”
Cochran added that while AI can assist coding, it remains unproven at scale for financial infrastructure.
These industry leaders’ concerns are not unfounded, as reports have revealed that AI codes could produce bugs and “miss relevant context.” This kind of error could be costly for a platform of Coinbase’s size, which holds over $420 billion worth of digital assets on behalf of its users.
However, other industry leaders defended Coinbase’s approach.
He argued that 90% of high-quality code could be AI-generated within five years, provided teams maintain rigorous practices such as code reviews, automated testing, and linting.
Wu also compared poor AI outputs to errors from junior engineers, suggesting that structured systems mitigate both.
