Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Founder Visa (again)

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 198 posts

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#81

Post by nickonline »

acslater00 wrote: post #67

This is a great idea, can I do this too?? The government can give me 100 visas to allocate, and I'll give them to international entrepreneurs whom I consider to be deserving and who incidentally and in a totally non quid-pro-quo fashion agree to sell me a 7% stake in their companies for a nominal fee. I'll also buy them pizza once a week, if that sweetens the pot.

This is the core problem, who gets to allocate the visas?

If we assume only YC & some of the other incubators it starts to drive more traffic to them and raises the barrier to entry for a new incubator as they probably won't be on this program (allocating visas).

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#82

Post by kijin »

> Many will fail, of course, but one could be the next Google, Facebook, Airbnb, or Dropbox.

What makes you think the United States cares about the next Airbnb or Dropbox? The policies of the Federal government are a (non-deterministic) function of a lot of powerful interests and opinions, and many of those interests are directly opposed to anything that threatens their outdated business models. As if today's founders need any more reason to avoid doing business in the United States.

I would much rather prefer startup accelerators like YC to expand into other regions of the world. One season per year in the EU and another season in Southeast Asia would be fantastic. Granted, many of these regions don't have the advantage of the Bay Area's technical and human infrastructure, but is that really such an insurmountable problem? We're startups, goddammit, it's our job to do create things where none used to exist.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#83

Post by sama »

People seem to be trying to deliberately misunderstand my point.

1) I don't think this should just be for YC. I'm just volunteering to beta test it. I think we are very likely to show success, which would hopefully open it much more broadly. But I'd be very happy to do it together with other investors from the beginning. I feel that in general investors (YC included) are not doing enough to push this issue.

2) I do think that investors should get a say in who gets startup visas. This is no different than universities, big companies, or even the people who give out Oscars deciding who is qualified to get one.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#84

Post by pc »

teacup50 wrote: post #79
pc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.* And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of your argument is off-base -- there's some plausible justification for it. But to your broader point -- conferring immigration status upon acceptance by an arbitrarily-designated institution makes me uncomfortable too. However, it's a ship that sailed a long time ago.…

Survivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data. [edit] The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other than evidence of corporate/investor o…

Well, I think survivorship bias is separate (though, agreed, it is endemic in our industry) -- the logic wouldn't change in this argument even if YC had only funded Airbnb and Dropbox. It may be a case of misattribution by the founders concerned, but hey -- in the absence of RCTs, trusting them seems like the right default.

> The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position.

I don't think Sam's argument is quite as self-serving, though I see how it could be interpreted this way. I think he'd agree that YC should not be a gatekeeper. (As in PG's original proposal.) But if the argument against the original proposal is that we somehow need more data before rolling it out everywhere, running a smaller experiment with YC would seem to be better than nothing at all.

I completely agree with you that a steady-state world of privileged visa-granters is not what we should be trying to bring about.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#85

Post by acslater00 »

pc wrote: post #78
acslater00 wrote: post #67

This is a great idea, can I do this too?? The government can give me 100 visas to allocate, and I'll give them to international entrepreneurs whom I consider to be deserving and who incidentally and in a totally non quid-pro-quo fashion agree to sell me a 7% stake in their companies for a nominal fee. I'll also buy them pizza once a week, if that sweetens the pot.

Airbnb and Dropbox will tell you that YC was instrumental in their success.* And, indeed, that the YC equity stake is worth it. So I think the thrust of your argument is off-base -- there's some plausible justification for it. But to your broader point -- conferring immigration status upon acceptance by an arbitrarily-designated institution makes me uncomfortable too. However, it's a ship that sailed a long time ago.…

I completely respect that, and I'm certainly not about to argue with a YC alum about the value of YC on the YC community forum. But there is a world of difference between trading equity for mentorship vs trading equity for a visa [+ mentorship]. It will obviously never happen, but if it did the program would be unrecognizable.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#86

Post by argonaut »

gamblor956 wrote: post #80
kenneth wrote: post #75

As somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card, though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves. I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first employee of a company that now employs north of a hu…

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for your circumstances. The O1 is intended for people who are the top of their fields; not just those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o (arts) that we want to steal from other countries. There were other visas that were more appropriate for…

I'm not sure if I agree with you. I'm not an immigration lawyer nor an immigration expert, so this is all anecdotal: I know a handful of startup founders, who were most certainly not at the top of their fields get O1 visas with the help of their top-top-tier investors / other things I'm not aware of (maybe speaking at second-rate conferences?). These were early stage startups that did not have much traction yet. While these founders would certainly be impressive to the HN crowd (open source contributions, cool things they've built), they were certainly not names you would have heard of even in technology circles.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#87

Post by kenneth »

gamblor956 wrote: post #80
kenneth wrote: post #75

As somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card, though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves. I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first employee of a company that now employs north of a hu…

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for your circumstances. The O1 is intended for people who are the top of their fields; not just those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o (arts) that we want to steal from other countries. There were other visas that were more appropriate for…

The EB visas are basically identical to the O visas, except for two differences: 1) the requirements are slightly more stringent, and 2) they are considered immigrant visas, as opposed to non-immigrant. ie., they are green cards.

That said, I agree with you that the O1 was not a perfect fit for my situation, though I did end up receiving it, while being denied the EB-1. But I would challenge you to name another visa which would be more appropriate and give me a better shot. Consider the fact that while I was critical in creating a large business, I also did not have a completed college degree, or any capital of my own to invest in the US.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#88

Post by teacup50 »

pc wrote: post #84
teacup50 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survivor bias is the opposite of objectively rational and actionable data. [edit] The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circumstance in which they happen to directly benefit, in a way that only helps them unfairly cement their already privileged position. It'd be hard for me to look at this privilege being granted as anything other than evidence of corporate/investor o…

Well, I think survivorship bias is separate (though, agreed, it is endemic in our industry) -- the logic wouldn't change in this argument even if YC had only funded Airbnb and Dropbox. It may be a case of misattribution by the founders concerned, but hey -- in the absence of RCTs, trusting them seems like the right default. > The thrust of his argument is that YC is asking to be granted special privileges, in a circu…

> ... trusting them seems like the right default.

Wouldn't objective analysis be the right default, rather than trusting those that were successful within an organization that has incentives that are, in the majority, contrary if not in outright competition, to your own?

YC isn't a charity, as I'm sure you're aware, and success is not guaranteed. They're in the business of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Nobody wants to be the spaghetti that doesn't stick, but the vast majority will be, and it's in YC's interests to keep convincing new people to jump in the pot.

So no, I don't trust them, or their motives, or think that it's to the benefit of anyone other than YC to grant them special immigration privileges. I certainly don't think outlier examples justify or prove YC's value to the American people, or to foreign citizens who might wish to pursue their interests here.

Re: The Founder Visa (again)

#89

Post by ahomescu1 »

nchuhoai wrote: post #60
ahomescu1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a) Most adventurous student entrepreneurs don't really MUST need a founder visa, they can use OPT. I think founders of Stripe did that. OPT is an extension of the F1 student visa, and only lasts for 12 months (29 with the STEM extension). In addition, it's a "non-immigration visa", which means that you can't apply for a green card with it (in fact, the whole idea of the visa is that you go back to your own country…

I'm fairly certain you can just apply for a new F1 visa?

Like I said, I'm not sure. The F1 visa is for studying; I'm not sure what happens when you graduate and move on to OPT.
Post reply on HN