3 ms·

> Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely

> Would people feel better about this if YC donated their 7% stake in those 50 companies to a charity? It would still be beneficial to YC directly and uniquely, and a special privilege, so no. On top of which, there are serious ethical concerns around a early-stage investors essentially controlling a founder's visa allocation and ongoing status.

HistoryInAction 13y ago
And yes, there is also political opposition from the left centered around the extra control investors would have if they also determine the immigration status of a founder. I don't understand that opposition, but I've run into it a few times.
- teacup50 13y ago
  You don't understand the ethical concerns related to having a huge negotiating advantage granted and enforced by the US government? You think that's a leftist issue?
  - HistoryInAction 13y ago
    Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I've only heard that concern from political professionals on the left, not that the concern itself was associated with one side of the aisle or another. And correct, I've never thought about the ethical concerns, so I'd be interested in your explanation. Most of the investors I've worked with in this space have already committed to invest in the startups dealing with immigration problems, and so their interest is to salvage their investment and stop it from being destroyed by the immigration system rather than negotiating the investment in the first place. In my defense, "certified VC/angel" sponsorship is a hypothetical proposal that has very, very little traction in Congress, and that I've opposed in favor of broad capital requirements (e.g. the Moran amendment, which I supported: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=893ec36f-1426-4fcc-9bc1-cc452db54fa9 http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?Fil... and some efforts by the US Chamber of Commerce that never made it into legislative language) Thanks!
rdl 13y ago
Are you a US voter?

HistoryInAction 13y ago

And yes, there is also political opposition from the left centered around the extra control investors would have if they also determine the immigration status of a founder. I don't understand that opposition, but I've run into it a few times.

teacup50 13y ago
You don't understand the ethical concerns related to having a huge negotiating advantage granted and enforced by the US government? You think that's a leftist issue?
- HistoryInAction 13y ago
  Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I've only heard that concern from political professionals on the left, not that the concern itself was associated with one side of the aisle or another. And correct, I've never thought about the ethical concerns, so I'd be interested in your explanation. Most of the investors I've worked with in this space have already committed to invest in the startups dealing with immigration problems, and so their interest is to salvage their investment and stop it from being destroyed by the immigration system rather than negotiating the investment in the first place. In my defense, "certified VC/angel" sponsorship is a hypothetical proposal that has very, very little traction in Congress, and that I've opposed in favor of broad capital requirements (e.g. the Moran amendment, which I supported: http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=893ec36f-1426-4fcc-9bc1-cc452db54fa9 http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?Fil... and some efforts by the US Chamber of Commerce that never made it into legislative language) Thanks!

rdl 13y ago

Are you a US voter?