Then why is he "very confused at how a tech company could be accused of racism"?

My definition of racism (which I did not share, despite it being the source of much debate) is discrimination against a particular group or groups on the basis of their heritage (ie, stuff outside their control).

So I was confused, because companies (like Coinbase) are being asked to discriminate by raising black employees to an especially high-status position vs, eg, Asians, then getting called racist when they do not.

But if the definition of racism was redefined to "unequal distribution of privileges between white people and people of color" then the accusations make sense.

You're right, it wasn't implied: it was explicitly stated.

It wasn't explicitly stated, either.

I think mattmanser has argued the point well.

The first paragraph is the OP saying that the company cannot [0] be racist since they (might) have a disproportionate number of one minority under their employment.

[0] - "cannot without causing the OP confusion", at least

OP just said it seems [my words here:] not grounded in observations of their behavior, not some definitional impossibility.