davemc500hats

hope you're not talking about me Paul.

I didn't leak ron's email, and I've been consistently public about this from the beginning.

the issue here isn't collusion, it's convertible notes.

your post on hi-def investing captures it perfectly, and some investor are likely not comfortable with that.

however I agree with you, and conv notes are definitely the future of early-stage investing...

angelgate sensationalism or not, that's the core issue here.

at the moment i think that's the only one, altho we've also invested in competitors: - USV in Indeed / me in Simply Hired - USV in Wesabe / me in Mint

still i'm a big fan of a lot of companies in their portfolio. Fred, Brad, & Albert are some of the smartest investors around.

i think what he's saying is it's an ok outcome if they can return capital (or slightly better)... likely for the purpose of reinvestment.

however that's not a target outcome, just a tolerable one.

true, but twitter growth was notably substantial even before people understood why it was diff than FB status.

not sure the popular LBS stuff is growing anywhere near as fast... but it should be.

check out http://payvment.com & http://yardsellr.com

craigslist is not in any great danger, but they also aren't innovating much... and even they too face competition from social platforms eventually if they keep standing still.

Yelp may seem like it's pretty dominant, but it's still somewhat sparse even in its most popular metros like SF, NYC, LA. it's very sparse in other less-well known major metros, and smaller towns.

takes time to build a comprehensive, online local search presence... particular one with good social coverage and activity.

yeah, i'm probably smoking something on those predictions, but blodget seemed to enjoy the speculation ;)

i'm sure there will be room for auction-style services, but there's going to be innovation and competition there, and eBay just isn't moving very quickly these days.

the other major trend is that both search and social distribution have substantially eroded eBay's original network effect as a destination for buyers & sellers... now both search (via SEM) and social (via FB & other networks) are also able to acquire & influence buyers.

anyway, i probably rag on eBay a little too much since i used to work there (via PayPal), but they have slowed down on the innovation quite a bit. that used to be offset by them buying innovative services, but that has also slowed down in recent years.

thanks for the kind words. (i think?)

but really... i'm not trying to write for fame & fortune, i'm just having fun. (ok, yeah i'm pretty sure it's also somewhat effective but honestly i do it as much for personal enjoyment as for public linkbaiting)

anyway, i appreciate the more straightforward way that folks like PG, Chris Dixon, and Fred Wilson write (all are among my favorites), but it just isn't quite my thing.

apologies if i end up seeming a bit off the wall.

maybe we can clear it up over a beer sometime.

cheers,

if they were online businesses, maybe it would only be modestly expensive and take 3-5 years to scale... but the market is LOTS of OFFLINE and SMALL businesses, which will take for-fking-EVER to scale organically.

thus, you either need to a) already have lots of users (FB,GOOG,AAPL,TWTR) to motivate businesses to participate, or b) you need to have enough cash to pay them to do so.

ergo, shitload of capital rqd, and/or get bought by bigger player who has users, cash, or both.

nah, i stopped doing the coke in college.. believe me crawling on the carpet looking for crack is really no fun.

regardless, i appreciate that u despise me enough to waste time commenting on my "incomprehensible drivel".

i'll translate 4 u: "LBS services cost money to scale."

got it?

(i can type slower if that helps)

while the #'s are a guessing game, the observation that there's a shitload of customer acquisition cost here isn't.

the main point is that lots of [mainstream] users + lots of [mostly offline] businesses are required to really make LBS services worth serious money.

this in turn requires lots of money to scale, and it's my assertion that the current players are wildly under-financed currently to achieve the necessary scale.

anyway, i might indeed be full of sh*t but the post isn't way out of bounds imho. your mileage may vary.

sorry about the lack of spelling or grammer [sic].

i'm an acquired [dis-]taste...

you may disagree whether EB-6's are higher priority than EB-3's, but it's not an irrational perspective... giving preference to people who create jobs is a reasonable point to argue.

you're in your rights to have a different opinion, but it's not an unreasonable position to argue. you act as if that's unethical, but it's more based on job creation in the US than for VCs to get rich. (there are plenty of other ways for VCs to get rich, and this isn't some nefarious angle we're pushing )

actually, i was trying to make a joke there... wasn't taking it personally at all. (srsly, i just have a terrible bedside manner).

that said, when you cast disparaging comments on the entire class of VCs not treating entrepreneurs well, it's hard not to take it a little personal (altho i've been on both sides).

when you're stereotyping, it does hit home a little harder.

i'm conceding about as much as you are, except i'm arguing from specific economic goals & benefits. you're arguing about "distortions" that appear to be subjective analysis.

if you want to have a discussion where we have the chance to change each others' minds, then perhaps we should be talking about what parts of investor mentality are in question, and why that isn't better than doing nothing / status quo.

well why not?

obviously we've let you into HN comments, & you're doing the equivalent of not wearing any intellectual pants... ;)

--

why are you quoting "sponsor"? why use "clique"? you're just trying to use specific questionable punctuation to indict a broad group of people w/o any real analysis of why their motives or ethics are in question.

job creation is likely to be a good thing. if you have specific solutions / suggestions on better ways to measure job creation effectiveness, please state them.

again, happy to argue about these topics rather than you simply ripping on the general proposal. at least we can get to constructive criticism, rather than whether you or anyone else aren't wearing pants.

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.

re: 1&2 -- yep, it hasn't passed yet... which is why we're still working on getting support & attention, and why a group of us is going to DC next month to discuss the issue with elected representatives.

re: 3 -- um, "investors are people too". actually, what you should notice is that the "demand" came from people who were concerned enough to take action, and try and get something to happen.

i can't disagree that it helps to have people on your side who can help with dollars and connections, but the more important point is that people cared enough to spend time & energy to make change.

with a little luck, we might get it all the way across the finish line.

please... your arguments are circular.

if the new visa class doesn't exist, these folks won't have jobs anyway. now you're claiming we should be worried their jobs might be taken away?

decide which part of the argument you wish to discuss.

please point out the information that supports your conclusion above. i'm not convinced unused EB-5s contribute to solving for other backlogs.

regardless, it's also not the case that all other backlogged visas are of higher priority than new visas. if there is a zero-sum game to be played, priorities could well be reviewed for all types of visas.

your argument for not approving this legislation seems to revolved solely around the backlog issue. there are other better ways to solve that problem than by simply stonewalling all other visa legislation.

again you're missing the point of the investor participation in this equation -- it's unlikely that accredited investors and venture capitalists would risk time, capital, reputation, and criminal penalty to perpetrate such a pointless exercise.

while it's possible, it's not very likely.

we did not draft legislation to cover all possible edge cases, but rather to reasonably address common scenarios.

so what's your solution? lower the amount?

i think you lose your side of the argument by arguing for any arbitrary amount. i'm happy to argue the merits of what the correct # is, but regardless i think we're just splitting hairs at that point... i've won the discussion.

besides, it's a rather ridiculous amount of hassle in both time & money to raise capital from experienced investors in exchange for hatching some supposedly nefarious scheme to -- wait for it -- hire some low-wage workers.

really, while i fully admit there may be gaming of the system attempted, this supposed workaround is quite a stretch -- it requires the participation of sophisticated investors willing to risk substantial amounts of capital, reputation, effort, and criminal penalty in order to execute.

this doesn't appear to be a rational point worth arguing, you're just being contrarian for the hell of it.

the criticism here is largely one-sided and poorly argued by a few such as yourself.

if you must make it zero-sum, then i'm quite willing to face the music in the senate.

so be it: have at thee, gauntlet thrown.

um, seriously... using the word "piss" is considered crass?

really, you must not read my blog.

i'm being incredibly civil in this discussion compared to my usual white-trash, immature, profane and loutish self.

again, i don't believe you're correct. i'm not aware that existing surplus unused EB-5 visas are used to "help" fill the backlog of EB-2 and EB-3 visas. there appears to be some surplus calculations going on between EB-1, 2, & 3 visas based on EB-1 priorities. i could be wrong; again i'm not an immigration lawyer.

that said, it could be argued there is some priority for immigrants who are helping to create jobs over those who are not. i'm not suggesting that position be used to set priorities in allocating visas, but it's not necessarily unfair that the backlog of some group visas has higher or lower priority than others.

it seems that you have a particular issue with your friend's visa being in backlog and not being approved, and that this is coloring your perspective on all other types of visas.

while i have sympathy for your situation, this is not a rational perspective from which to make an argument for prioritization of visas, imho.

sorry, no free rides... if you fail, you have to start over again.

(that is: you can always start another business, pitch new investors for funding, and re-qualify for the new business. there is no restriction on multiple attempts, however you will have to convince investors you're worth a 2nd chance... or 3rd... or 4th... etc)

i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year).

if anything, prioritization is likely to work the other way: EB-1s first, then EB-2s, EB-3s, etc. see language below for EB-1 priority visa workers (with "extraordinary abilities"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa

note: i am not an immigration lawyer (IANA[I]L).

you may also wish to review language for the Immigration Act of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

i'm saying that solving INS processing times by not introducing new visa legislation is a rather ass-backwards perspective.

furthermore, the job creation / economic output benefits don't need to wait for green card processing to be solved.

there's being practical, and then there's simply being defeatist.

i'd rather be part of trying to provide solutions to INS processing times than to wait on innovative solutions to job creation & immigration reform.

aditya: dude, if you can't create at least 5 jobs in 2 years with $250K in capital, you're a pretty pathetic excuse for an entrepreneur.

this is not a handout, it's a hand up. we expect people to innovate, create jobs, and create positive economic results.

we're trying to help those who are willing to help themselves. and yes, those entrepreneurs who are more capable -- that is, can run a business profitably at some scale, and can create a minimum # of jobs -- will have a better shot than others.

there is nothing unfair or unethical about trying to help those entrepreneurs who are willing to do the work necessary to make it happen.