4 ms·

That's pretty cool. So all I need to do is to get a friend of mine to register as an Angel, then give him 100k I've got my Visa. A lot of people can raise 100k

That's pretty cool. So all I need to do is to get a friend of mine to register as an Angel, then give him 100k I've got my Visa. A lot of people can raise 100k - this seems like it would cause a lot of immigration to happen.

icey 17y ago
They've proposed strict requirements as to who can perform these kinds of investments in order to prevent the kind of loophole you're describing.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Those requirements are, in their entirety: that you are an accredited investor, and that you've made 2 $50k equity investments within the last 3 years.
  - icey 17y ago
    Ha, okay so "strict requirements" is not the right way to describe it. To do what Max was talking about would only require $200K to get in the door, and the willingness of an accredited investor to commit fraud.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      It wouldn't be fraud. Reread the bill.
    - davemc500hats 17y ago
      there are obvious rqmts to qualify that require time and effort in addition to capital, and a track record of investment over at least 3 years and 6 previous companies. there are obvious penalties which would be incurred if someone intentionally abused this system. legislation does not prevent all types of abuse, however we have attempted to reasonably make it unlikely that such abuse would not occur without great cost and risk to the perpetrators. we believe we have done a responsible job in drafting the legislation to avoid this. exact language will depend on how the bill gets negotiated before final vote.
      - boucher 17y ago
        Is the 2 $50k investment's cumulative? In other words, someone like pg makes a lot of small investments. He is obviously included in the kinds of investors you're trying to select with this bill, but would he meet this requirement? I think it should say at least 2 investments, and at least $100k in total value of the investments.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        So, again, requiring a track record of investment over at east 3 years and 6 companies might (for instance) exclude Warren Buffet, and keeping the requirements loose means that virtually anyone can "sponsor" an "entrepreneur" for very little money and get them 3 years residency in the US. This just doesn't seem well thought out.
        davemc500hats 17y ago
        seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason? yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's reasonable to require some domain experience that can be provably audited. and yes, the investors who do qualify will likely not be completely sketchy and/or likely to commit fraud. we picked a reasonable bar to get over that straddles both a rqmt of experience and some capital without making it so low that people could abuse it. investing $300,000 in capital in 6 companies over 3 years does NOT seem like "virtually anyone" for "very little money". your perspective again seems irrational & extreme.
        tptacek 17y ago
        My perspective is that the "investor sponsorship" component of this bill is arbitrary, unfair, and will distort the market. I've been pretty consistent about this point throughout the whole "argument". If you don't want to continue arguing, stop arguing. I don't care what bar you picked for investors, except for the fact that it seems obvious that it's modelled on the tech investor clique. If you got the investor model perfect, I'd still have a problem with conflating investment with viability or value to the economy. I don't believe for one millisecond that you will concede anything about this bill, which you clearly passionately support. That doesn't bother me at all, for what it's worth.
tptacek 17y ago
You'll be ejected when you can't raise $1MM in revenue or (worse) capital within three years. For a lot of people, maybe that doesn't matter; the bill doesn't set out any practical way to ensure that visa applicants are bona fide.

icey 17y ago

They've proposed strict requirements as to who can perform these kinds of investments in order to prevent the kind of loophole you're describing.

tptacek 17y ago
Those requirements are, in their entirety: that you are an accredited investor, and that you've made 2 $50k equity investments within the last 3 years.
- icey 17y ago
  Ha, okay so "strict requirements" is not the right way to describe it. To do what Max was talking about would only require $200K to get in the door, and the willingness of an accredited investor to commit fraud.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    It wouldn't be fraud. Reread the bill.
  - davemc500hats 17y ago
    there are obvious rqmts to qualify that require time and effort in addition to capital, and a track record of investment over at least 3 years and 6 previous companies. there are obvious penalties which would be incurred if someone intentionally abused this system. legislation does not prevent all types of abuse, however we have attempted to reasonably make it unlikely that such abuse would not occur without great cost and risk to the perpetrators. we believe we have done a responsible job in drafting the legislation to avoid this. exact language will depend on how the bill gets negotiated before final vote.
    - boucher 17y ago
      Is the 2 $50k investment's cumulative? In other words, someone like pg makes a lot of small investments. He is obviously included in the kinds of investors you're trying to select with this bill, but would he meet this requirement? I think it should say at least 2 investments, and at least $100k in total value of the investments.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      So, again, requiring a track record of investment over at east 3 years and 6 companies might (for instance) exclude Warren Buffet, and keeping the requirements loose means that virtually anyone can "sponsor" an "entrepreneur" for very little money and get them 3 years residency in the US. This just doesn't seem well thought out.
      - davemc500hats 17y ago
        seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason? yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's reasonable to require some domain experience that can be provably audited. and yes, the investors who do qualify will likely not be completely sketchy and/or likely to commit fraud. we picked a reasonable bar to get over that straddles both a rqmt of experience and some capital without making it so low that people could abuse it. investing $300,000 in capital in 6 companies over 3 years does NOT seem like "virtually anyone" for "very little money". your perspective again seems irrational & extreme.
        tptacek 17y ago
        My perspective is that the "investor sponsorship" component of this bill is arbitrary, unfair, and will distort the market. I've been pretty consistent about this point throughout the whole "argument". If you don't want to continue arguing, stop arguing. I don't care what bar you picked for investors, except for the fact that it seems obvious that it's modelled on the tech investor clique. If you got the investor model perfect, I'd still have a problem with conflating investment with viability or value to the economy. I don't believe for one millisecond that you will concede anything about this bill, which you clearly passionately support. That doesn't bother me at all, for what it's worth.

tptacek 17y ago

You'll be ejected when you can't raise $1MM in revenue or (worse) capital within three years. For a lot of people, maybe that doesn't matter; the bill doesn't set out any practical way to ensure that visa applicants are bona fide.