The Founder Visa - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html <comment><USER3> _How would the government decide who's a startup investor? The same way they decide what counts as a university for student visas. We'll establish our own accreditation procedure._

This part scares me. Accreditation boards are a bug, not a feature. Perhaps, like pg's idea, they started out as well intentioned. But today, their primary purpose is to erect arbitrary barriers of entries, thus propping of the salaries of professionals and the tuition of the schools. The tech industry is great because it is so isolated from politics and bureaucracy. I'd hate for that to change.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a worry. It would have to be super transparent. Originally I proposed a straightforward algorithm for deciding: to use Erdos numbers with Ron Conway as the seed. I took this out because I thought it was better not to go into this level of detail in the essay, but I'd advocate using something like this to decide who was a startup investor.

<comment><USER4> You rank applicants to the visa program by Erdos numbers? Is this the same Erdos number as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number>? Or do you rank investors?

In either case, you're ranking people based on _WHO_ they know, not what they know. Worst kind of ranking possible (it keeps competent outsiders out).

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the investors who'd be ranked by Ronco numbers, not the visa applicants. And even there it wouldn't be based on anyone knowing anyone. If you invest in a startup that Ron Conway later invests in, you have a Ronco number of 1, whether he likes it or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a non-American who applied to YC twice the article was a pleasant surprise. However I'm not sure America is as attractive to non-American founders as some people think. I'll explain (my arguments are mostly personal perceptions...I have no practical evidence yet on any of this since my own startup is still at the "wrote some code" stage).

Let's suppose there are 2 types of founders: people who have enough money & connections, and the young "live on Ramen noodles" type founders.

For the "money & connections" type, a lot of foreign countries offer cheap but still qualified programmers and don't put too many obstacles on founding companies so if your country is like that it might make sense to stay. For the "Ramen" type, many of them may not afford America's often high living costs.

As for the argument that the US provides a better/more free market... even this is changing: The internet probably allows relatively easy selling to worldwide customers from any country.

All that said, the American dream probably still lives on and many people would likely provide counter-examples to my limited point of view. Of course pg didn't claim that coming to the US is a no-brainer for every single talented hacker. There are probably enough of those who are interested to satisfy the 10,000 founder/year goal.

<comment><USER6> " _For the "Ramen" type, many of them may not afford America's often high living costs._ "

I think the algorithm PG proposes is something like this:

1\. Produce enough that you would be able to convince someone to fund you. Maybe this takes a prototype, a convincing sales pitch, ramen profitability, etc.

2\. Convince someone to [seed] fund you.

3\. Move to a place with an environment favorable to startups.

4\. Continue working on your product, now with access to investors, other founders, good employees, great weather, ...

The idea is to get to step 4 as fast as possible. In most parts of the world you'd never be able to find good investors or a startup-supporting culture, and that counts for lot. As PG has pointed out, there's a huge variance in startup-friendliness even amongst the major cities in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Having been through the hoops, I'd generally support this, but it's a tough sell in today's economy. Because there are _emotions_ involved.

There are already similar visas (EB-5 and E-1). Especially the E-1 category is very close and could easily be amended to fit Paul's ideas (I used the E-1 as co-founder of my previous startup, EVE).

One issue that needs to be addressed: you are not likely to get funding until you move here. But if the visa gives you a grace period (say 6 months) to move first before you get funding, then it will be abused.

<comment><USER8> > you are not likely to get funding until you move here

I think it's likely that if this visa existed, VCs would adapt to it by becoming more open to funding people who haven't immigrated yet.

<comment><USER9> Can anyone think of a wonderful business (think truly great) that couldn't get funding until they were in the US?

From what I have seen there is tons of money if your model is great.

I think the counter is true: it's much easier to raise money for bleeding edge ideas in the US. But, ask yourself whether you want to be doing a bleeding edge business (e.g. based on twitter or facebook) or one thats more likely to make you wealthy (B2B).

<comment><USER10> _Can anyone think of a wonderful business (think truly great) that couldn't get funding until they were in the US?_

How would you know? You only hear about the success stories and the spectacular failures, not the full spectrum in between.

 _But, ask yourself whether you want to be doing a bleeding edge business (e.g. based on twitter or facebook) or one thats more likely to make you wealthy (B2B)._

Just because you'd prefer to do a B2B startup you want to deny others from trying to go straight to the top?

<comment><USER9> "How would you know? You only hear about the success stories and the spectacular failures, not the full spectrum in between."

By truly great I was meaning something that was a spectacular success. Every company I have ever had the pleasure of knowing personally with a great model had plenty of capital, whatever location they were in. Others who thought there model was great, but clearly was too risky didn't.

"Just because you'd prefer to do a B2B startup you want to deny others from trying to go straight to the top?"

I am not denying anyone from starting anything, just pointing at the facts. It's much easier to get a B2B making money than a twitter widget that isn't charging.

In my opinion, those types of businesses are never going to be the next youtube, so why bother. You either go for the home run or the easy money. But that's just my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _By definition these 10,000 founders wouldn't be taking jobs from Americans_

"But, but, but: their companies will compete with and disrupt established American businesses, destroying American jobs! Why, a 4-foreigner web news or classified startup could put dozens of (unionized, citizen, voter) newspaper employees out of work!"

Of course I don't believe this is true, nor would it even be a good reason to restrict entry if it were true. (Better to have the new disruptive companies here, than elsewhere.) But that's the sort of deranged logic used against broader immigration. The neat trick of limiting the visas to those starting companies will only help a little against anti-immigrant emotions.

 _They wouldn't all grow as big as Google, but out of 2500 some would come close._

I suspect close-to-Google-scale successes come more like 1-in-100,000-tries than 1-in-2500. There's a tendency to see every startup as a potential little Google -- we could call this 'Google Goggles'. But Google is one-of-a-kind, and it shouldn't require even one success of that scale to make the case for broader immigration.

For example, shouldn't these visas be available to immigrants whose 'startup' is a donut shop, nail salon, or bodega?

(I also suspect such a program could be easily gamed... but as I'd like to see more immigration of anyone ambitious, I suppose that's a feature not a bug.)

</comment><comment><USER12> This line made me smile:

 _I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous._

It reminded me of "Law 13" of "The 48 Laws of Power":

 _uncover something in your request... that will benefit him, and emphasize it out of all proportion._

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555691>

<comment><USER13> A risk might be that if even one Al Qaeda terrorist gets in under this program, then the whole program will be shut down, and the sponsoring member of Congress's name will be infamous forever after.

<comment><USER14> Good VCs vet potential investees better than the FBI does. And that is true without the risk of being blamed for enabling a terrorist. Think about how well a VC would vet someone coming in from outside the country. (How well they _can_ vet such a person is a separate but important issue).

And at least one of the 9/11 hijackers came in on a student visa. The student visa program has not been shut down (although checks for all visa programs have become more stringent).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hear, hear. I couldn't agree more. I have a foreign-born friend who has inspired similar thoughts in me. I'm convinced this friend could found an incredible web startup here in the States if only the Federal Government wasn't making it so difficult for him.

I wrote to my congressman expressing this sentiment. He replied saying in a nutshell: "Don't worry, I strongly support protecting American jobs from foreign encroachment."

I wrote back to say that this was nearly the complete opposite of my concern, and I asked him to respond with an indication that my original email was not misunderstood. Of course I never heard back.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is it incidental that except for one or two guys in essay review are all people who are small investors who don't have ability to open investment shop in India/China?..

May be 20 yrs back this was relevant but today just because you offer does not mean quality people need it..so before proposing was there actually needs analysis..did somebody read the Chinese social networks are ahead in revenue numbers and there is huge investment in electric cars..same story with other emerging markets and don't think there are no investment funds there..obviously, people will say there is not enough support but in Silicon valley also beyond seed stage very few outsiders get the funding..checkout thefunded.com for more information..so if you are smart/hard working then stay where you are because you can create opportunities..also worthwhile to read mercury news story about dwindling public companies in silicon valley.. the other part of the story is not there but you can very well guess.. world is flat!

Btw, I have 2 investments in Indian companies and I would not advise them coming to US unless they establish themselves well..simply because starting and growing a company is not easy if you do not have well established connections and good market read..hiring good people also needs good connections..most of the time your early employees are your friends or past coworkers.. This kind of arrangement will work only if the people are going to hand over reins to someone local ..this is exactly and only suitable for mass investors like Ron Conway/YCombinator..and I don't want to say anything on this forum but entrepreneurs while choosing the investor need to see lot more than initial recognition.. I know many people will oppose me here but just walk through a case scenario where this will work..also if you are going to throw in Google example then please do thorough analysis.. My advice to young entrepreneur is just go in the market where you understand things not that looks shiny.. there are no overnight successes..and don't quit something you have (can have) simply on the word of an investor..definitely not for the people who can not be with you till you get cash flow positive..(just to be clear I am not taking swipe at either Ron or YCombinator program..i am just talking in context of extending (and "assuming") its relevance to international teams without really understanding the other side)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that would-be founders should stay in their home countries and start their startups there?

If so, then the answer is that it depends on the country and the nature of the startup. There are certainly some combinations of country/startup where the founders would be better off in Silicon Valley. It's up to the individual founders to decide if theirs is.

<comment><USER16> uh..hard point to understand (or swallow?).

I don't believe in this assumption -- "There are certainly some combination of country/startup where the founders would be better off in Silicon Valley - when we are talking about founders who need visas (they can't get EB5 green card which is given based on investment or business visas which are pretty much given to anyone who has valid established business or who are not already in US as a student/employee..in that case founders do get H1B easily transferred for their own company provided they can show company of substance..if they pursued advanced degree here then they don't get in H1B cap)..so limits to be the people without much of resources of their own - <USER2> don't understand market here (at least not on first hand basis) and don't have connections..how will they succeed.. why misguide some of them and also fool ourselves that such a thing is useful..especially, given there is much better chance if they stay where they are then they will be able to pull off something successful targeted at the market they already understand

and that too putting up number of 2500 such startups every year ..good idea to write 2 examples to validate it first..tell me some story..

so my point..people should start company where they understand the market and if US wants to benefit from international resources then investors should go outside US because only that will work..because that is right for startups/founders/investors..

<comment><USER14> Actually there _is_ a cap on H1B visas for advanced degree holders (20000/year) and this year this cap was met before the cap for the general category.

<comment><USER16> you are right Ajju..this 20,000 exemption number indeed was not enough this year ..I sponsored 2 H1Bs in 2006 and that year it was different..there is just strong appetite for those visas.. I am in full support of increasing that exemption limit because it seems it is pretty finite short fall and don't know why it is not given by priority in the general bucket.. if somebody is doing something on that then let me know how to support.. As far as Paul, you not being able to understand what I say..I don't expect you to understand much of it anyway..from your essay and comments, you come out as a typical guy who has a 100% workable solution (in his mind) but he does not understand the problem or market..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A visa type that is quite similar to what you propose does exist. It's the E-2 "entrepreneur" or "Treaty Investor" visa (<http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1273.html>).

I've gone through the process, and despite it being a lot of paperwork and requiring the help of a lawyer, it was ultimately a good experience.

In order to get such a visa, one has to submit a business plan, and show sufficient funds from abroad. Interestingly, the funds only have to be appropriate for the business to be started, there is no set minimum like a lot of people assume (e.g. 100k). An example my lawyer gave me was a woman that wanted to start a horse riding school, and who got her E-2 by proving an investment of ~30k into her company.

I started an internet business, and my investment was in the same ballpark.

Also, for founders already living in the US, it is ok to work on setting up the business, e.g. incorporating etc, while applying for the E-2, as long as no customers are being engaged and money is being earned.

A downside is, that there is no straight path from the E-2 to a greencard; other then upping the investment (which has to come from abroad) to $10^6.

Edit: There is another downside, mentioned elsewhere in this thread. One has to be from a 'treaty' nation.

Disclaimer: I'd strongly advise you to consult an immigration lawyer if you want to do this.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think the Founders Visa idea totally reflects the American freedom spirit and it must be definitely tried.

I am currently holding a Highly Skilled Migrant Visa from the UK, and this was the only way I could start a startup there. After the visa was available, I quit my job and started my own business. I think with this visa, UK already went ahead of U.S. in this respect.

I agree that in order to reduce competition with American citizens, the Founders Visa may be limited to working in your own company. Founders don't want to be employed (I strictly don't - even was gonna refuse Google if they made an offer) and new companies create job openings. A Visa of this kind would be totally adequate for someone like me.

I didn't like the "Let investors choose" criteria. What if I am self-funded? If I bring my funds in, isn't that even better? Also it is highly subjective whether a founder is going to be successful or not. I think the election strategy should be based on founder's age, education, past earnings, work experience etc. just like in the UK scheme: <http://www.workpermit.com/uk/hsmp_calculator.htm>

Yes this is not the best criteria to select successful founders, but at least it is a "secure" criteria, i.e. you choose people elite enough that they won't hurt U.S economy. You could start with a "science/business graduate founders" scheme, and extend it based on success.

My last words go to Europe. Europe is living in the past. I wanted to attend FOSDEM in Belgium, was requested so many difficult documentation for Visa, that I decided not to go. I will probably never go to Belgium or similar countries, not because I hate them, but because its simply not worth the effort to visit those countries.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm thinking: how can this be exploited? Can someone just say they're building a new way to shorten urls and need two years in the country to build their business to fruition? And what defines success or progress?

<comment><USER20> If someone did apply under false pretenses, get here, and do nothing, then what would be the negative impact on the country?

PG's suggestion was that they cannot work for other companies, so they are not depriving anyone of a job. They will have to live somehow (on whomever's money they have), and that will go into the local economy. If you add a clause to the visa that they cannot claim any type of social welfare, then I think the potential downside of 'gaming' nowhere near outweighs* all the potential upsides.

* - opportunity cost of the 10,000 spots excepted, which is why you have the right folks picking the 10,000.

<comment><USER21> Maybe add a requirement to hold in escrow enough money to ship the person back, for the case where their startup fails?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's a good idea. The visa system generally makes it hard for hard-working highly-motivated highly-educated foreigners to come to the US and create value. PG is right that we should be _attracting_ these people instead of throwing random obstacles in their way.

\-- American-born son of an immigrant Indian scientist

</comment><comment><USER22> A VISA?! Are you f..ing kidding me? Do you know what a fragile status one has while on a VISA? Any day you your visa can be revoked and you can be thrown out.

Do you expect me to risk everything, to pour my life and blood into a business while under the stress that if anything goes wrong I am on a plane with a one- way ticket to a place where I have nothing anymore, together with my family and away for any of my friends?

Do you want founders? Do you want INVESTORS? Anything less than a Green Card is a spit in the face. Take an example from Canada or UK who both offer directly residency under a set of qualification rules, not $1m.

Stop treating us as we're nothing more than students happy to receive a couple dozen k as if that was an actual serious investment. Oh wait...

<comment><USER23> I've worked on visa for several years, so I know it's like putting your life at the mercy of USCIS. I got enough stress until I got a GC. But there are already people who are willing to risk that, so it is one step forward for those people and for US economy. And it is where pg stands, so at least it's consistent; you shouldn't be surprised.

Of course there are different views. For other countries who wants to compete Silicon Valley, it is bad. For those who concern rights of visa workers, more visas may only make problems worse. You can stands there and discuss those disadvantages logically, but you don't need to burst emotional responses---it won't help changing opinions of the other side.

BTW, I think this visa plan is only an initial step and clear path to a Green Card should be shown as the next step. After September 2001, it seems that employment-based Green Card processing is taking longer and longer. Some of my friends are waiting 5-6 years already. There's not much point if those who has built successful business have to stay on non-immigrant visa status.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _The tricky part might seem to be how one defined a startup. But that could be solved quite easily: let the market decide._

As much as I support your position (I'm an open immigration advocate), the concept of "Let the market decide" isn't exactly a position I hear the government ever clamoring to support. The government wants control, and giving up control is it's antithesis.

</comment><comment><USER25> Anyone who missed it should check out the etherpad link: <http://etherpad.com/ep/pad/slider/foundervisa>

Very cool.

<comment><USER26> The accreditation struggle was tough! Now I want a list of every investors Ronco number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This idea is a special case of Gary Becker's proposal to sell the right to immigrate ([http://www.becker-posner- blog.com/archives/2005/02/sell_the_...](http://www.becker-posner- blog.com/archives/2005/02/sell_the_right.html)). In this special case, the investors in the immigrant's business would pay the immigration fee.

I don't see why the potential benefit to the US of immigrants with startup ideas is necessarily greater than immigrants of similar technical skills with no stated intention to start a company. But the immigration fee could help in sorting that out.

<comment><USER28> So the first thing all immigrants learn is that you're taxed for absolutely nothing in return. Paying a tax to be allowed to pay taxes. Thank you very much :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> One danger is that the accreditation process for recognised investors could be hijacked and used to give special privileges to a small number of firms.

<comment><USER30> That's simple. You just make the accredidation based on the number and size of US investments and you allow some small portion of those to be of this special class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> After edit: On second reading of your article, this differs from the existing investor visa category

[http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ff96138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)

in asking the would-be immigrant to put up talent rather than money as the sign he will run a successful business. That's in line with your usual take on how easy it is to start up new businesses in today's economy.

It's an intriguing idea to broaden the talent pool available for seed-stage investors to invest in. The political objections will revolve around

a) What happens to the people who start up but flame out, failing in their businesses? It's expensive to deport people who have already arrived, and they sometimes disappear from the view of law enforcement.

b) Why shouldn't the United States start-up investment market be preferentially granted to persons who have legal right to work in the United States? (My bias is toward free movement of people across borders, but the only reason immigration law exists at all is that not everyone shares my bias, not in any country.)

P.S. I am a lawyer, and used to practice immigration law, although the bulk of the cases I worked on involved different visa categories.

</comment><comment><USER31> A link to a PETITION where one can register support, might give this some political traction.

I think pg+hn+/. etc could generate 50k signatures.

ideas?

<comment><USER32> An e-petition will do diddly. Write your senator, congressman and governor on _paper_ , sign the documents and mail them.

Paper letters are the currency of elected representatives, and a stack of 10k letters descending on numerous offices would do infinitely more than a lonely web page with 50k e-mail addresses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Others have said it, but I'll say it again.

Maybe in 1989, this would have made sense. But capitalism has had enough converts that most countries have pretty low barriers to high tech startups now.

IMHO, people who are already entreprenurial in their home countries will be the last people who will want to immigrate to the US. Maybe pg looks at the number of companies founded by immigrants and thinks that he can increase that number by creating a new visa class for founders. Immigrants start businesses because American culture is much more stable, open to startups, tolerant of failure, and gives people second chances; so many immigrants let go of their previous cultural biases and _become_ founders.

If you're already an entrepreneur in a poorer country like India and China, why would you immigrate from there to a country where _all_ expenses are _vastly_ higher. I mean, _American_ companies are setting up development centers in India and China. For richer countries like France and Germany, you give you any existing networks and go to a new place. Seems like a net loss to me.

You have stay in a culture for a while before you recognize business opportunities there. I bet that most of the immigrants who start things do so after staying in the US for 3+ years. My claim is that a new immigrant will do _worse_ at business than average.

You'll have to let in lots of smart people and hope that some start companies. Maybe you can set up the rules so that it's easier for the smart new arrivals to start a business as soon as they're ready.

Currently, due to various rules, the most common route to permanent residency takes approx 6 years of _continuous_ employment with the _same_ employer for an immigrant to gain unrestricted rights to do business (this requires permanent residency). So for somebody who arrived for a Master's degree (being simplistic and using Master's as a proxy for smartness), it will be 8 years after arrival. This same person may have understood the culture well enough in 3 years and be ready to start a business.

</comment><comment><USER33> PG's post is interesting, as always. The bit that is worrying me is the linked Etherpad animation. Am I the only one that looks at the Etherpad DVCS using javascript functions as the delta data format, and think XSS sploit in waiting?

</comment><comment><USER34> So if you don't need VC money you don't get in?

<comment><USER35> This is a serious hole in the proposal. If you have enough resources to not need to take investment for your startup (and want to minimize outside early stage money), but not enough for an EB-5 investor visa, then you're excluded. I know several people who fall into that gap; you'd think the US government would be happy to take immigrants with say at least 500k$ to support themselves but nope..

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Neat idea except for the part about using investors to validate which startup counts. What about the plenty of viable and compelling startups that have decided to bootstrap?

</comment><comment><USER11> Implementation questions:

Do the investors have to be Americans, or is it enough that the investment is spent in the U.S.?

When the money runs out or the startup fails, are the founders asked to leave?

</comment><comment><USER37> _I usually avoid politics, but since we now seem to have an administration that's open to suggestions, I'm going to risk making one_

If your goal is to persuade as many people as possible, insulting the previous administration and by extension those that voted for Bush is a bad start. I was already opposed to your idea before the second sentence, despite the fact that I'm an advocate of increased legal immigration.

<comment><USER38> I'm always curious when people say they advocate increasing immigration. Right now, the United States takes about 1.2 million immigrants legally into the country every year. Does this seem too low a number to you? If so, do you see a practical need for some kind of limit, or are you in favor of limitless immigration?

<comment><USER39> The problem is that the majority of illegal immigrants are at the low end of the tax spectrum, often taking more out than the put in. The people who we'd ideally want in the country are at the other end, and they usually aren't here illegally. That is the group PG is trying to target here, and I'm ALL for making it easier for them to immigrate.

<comment><USER38> I completely agree, our immigration system needs reform, badly. In fact, I see "low hanging fruit" that could really improve our economy and quality of life.

That said, I didn't really get an answer... you say you're in favor of increasing legal immigration - are you in favor of changing the mix, of do you think that we need to go way above the current level of 1.2+ million a year?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The main problem here is that there is no need for founders to move to the USA to get funded by the US investors.

How would such a visa benefit foreign investors? If there is a shortage of good entrepreneurs in the States, wouldn't it be easier if the VC's start fishing around the world instead of waiting for all the fish to come to their own pond?

Y Combinator should take a hint from their UK/European counterpart, Seedcamp. Starting in London two years ago with a similar model as YC has in the US, they have started organizing local mini-Seedcamps throughout Europe to make it easier for the startups to apply: the first mini-Seedcamp was last year in Kiev, Ukraine, while this year they have a tour of seven cities -- Tel Aviv, Paris, Warsaw, London, Helsingborg, Ljubljana and Berlin; check www.seedcamp.com -- where local startups may apply towards the main event in London later this year.

</comment><comment><USER41> With all due respect, this seems pretty naive to me.

I've met dozens of people trying to gain entry to Canada and the US, and it's common knowledge that you can game the system with money. This would just provide another entry point.

You would have to define what is a successful startup, in simple legal terms, and people would find ways to satisfy the definition and stay in the country.

I have experienced first-hand the difficulty of moving to a new country, adapting to a new system, trying to build a new social network. Any genuine startup founders would have to contend with all this, all the while knowing that if their business fails they're booted out of the country.

Anyway, I believe the reason entrepreneurship works so well in the US is because we allow people to fail.

</comment><comment><USER42> What about the opposite question. Do startups need to be in the US to be successful? And if so why? I'm sure there are non-US originated webapps that are popular in the US, but it seems the opposite tends to happen more often (Google, Facebook, etc etc...). Given that you can host your web app on EC2 from anywhere in the world with an internet connection as easily as from the US, what then are the barriers? My guess is that it is actually mostly cultural. If I write a webapp I am more comfortable knowing the target audience well. If it is a cultural barrier, then maybe the foreign founders don't really gain much from being in the US unless they are here to absorb the culture?

</comment><comment><USER43> Currently, how difficult is it to get overseas founders into existing startup programs such as YC, TechStars etc? Is YC, for instance, turning down foreign applicants due to visa restrictions? If not, I don't see a problem.

</comment><comment><USER44> Its a fine plan. If I were your congressman, I would support the bill ;).

But if you think the U.S. is already tapped out of top entrepreneurs, your not looking hard enough.

What would the costs be to enable those already in America? Things like school loan deferment and establishing incubation investment vehicles in at least 10 other cities could enable at least 10,000 Americans. Sure that costs something. But if you think it would be cheap to oversee a special program for 10,000 "entrepreneur visas" a year, then you haven't spent much time at immigration offices ;).

</comment><comment><USER45> I agree - Infact this is THE biggest reason , stopping me to break free and launch my ideas.

If "I" were to start a firm , all that matters is talent, I would cherish to work with fellow American workers. Remember in the modern age , the more varied my fellow workers are , the richer is my experience. Each one of us has an amazing story to tell, along with the rich experiences from our varied backgrounds.

I do understand the worries about the American workers right. Its genuine, and I respect it.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm just happy to see the karma going where it belongs. I "found" these essays three days before my first trip to Bombay, and read all of them on the 14 hour nonstop. I showed up only slightly tired from the travel, but extremely optimistic on the world, the future, and myself. And that made a difference in convincing my now in-laws that I was a worthy son-in-law, deserving of their daughter, the most wonderful woman I know.

Thanks, Paul, for another excellent essay.

</comment><comment><USER20> Nice idea. Feels like a version of the E-2, brought in line with the new realities of the cost of starting a web based business - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E2_visa> (government is always slow). Rather than requiring applicants to bring _monetary capital_ into the country, they'd be required to bring _start-up capital_ , as measured by those who will invest in it.

<comment><USER47> My E-2 interview (at the US embassy in Singapore) is scheduled at the end of this month.

Cost me more than $6K (in attorney fee, etc) and countless number of hours to prepare all the documents without any guarantee that I'll get it.

It _is_ more scary than applying to YC, now good luck to myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I wonder, how could one turn this idea into a lobbying effort? Who else realises the benefit of it and would support it? Whom should be contacted and what representation should be made?

I think it's a great idea, btw.

Of all people BillG has actually been before congress and represented on this issue. He had said that Microsoft had often been naive with regard to the contact needed in Washington to get things changed.

Modernising this idea, how about Eric Schmidt?

</comment><comment><USER49> It seems like this might be more viable politically than most attempts at immigration reform in the US because it neutralizes (if not reverses) the "they're taking our jobs" objection. The objection could hardly become "they're starting our businesses".

On the other hand, it's hard to underestimate the irrationality surrounding this issue.

Edit: What meaningful changes could the Obama administration make without having to go through Congress?

</comment><comment><USER50> I've not had a really detailed read of all the comments, so apologies if I missed it somewhere, but how do you justify it as "a policy that would cost nothing"? Or am I confusing monetary cost with something else?

The rest of the idea seems sane, though, as long as the application for the visa made it clear what the intention was, on top of "I want to found a company or companies please".

Non-US resident here, for what it's worth.

</comment><comment><USER45> Here is how the US can go about it,

1\. All visa applications must have a "CERTIFIED" viable buisness plan.

2\. Sensible cash amounts should be with the applicant along with the good credit standings - Its foolish to ask for 100K if you are starting a Web2.0 business.

3\. Periodic progress reports to be submitted , certified by auditors.

4\. Initially for 2 yr , and then renewable depending on numerous factors like success etc

</comment><comment><USER51> Not very likely to happen.

To put things in perspective: most (non-European) foreign nationals are required to hold a transit visa just to make a connection via an US airport. To obtain that visa you need to go the local US consulate and schedule an interview. Not for study or tourism, mind you. Just to step off a plane and board another 2 hours later.

</comment><comment><USER52> Just use an E-1 and educate US investors that if they invest in overseas company X then they can get E-1 status.

<comment><USER53> E-1 is restricted to nationals of a small set of countries. It needs to be more open.

<comment><USER45> Dude , some of those countries in the list is a joke !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Why should people(bright) all around the world come and help america? Why are proposing an idea to lure these bright people? Has america lost its confidence? In this digital age, whole world is like home. Why again think of country ? why not "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"?

<comment><USER55> " why not "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"? "

For those who don't know Sanskrit

"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" == (roughly) "(Every one in) The world is my family"

I wish people wouldn't drop into non english languages without providing a translation. If someone were to sprinkle his messages with Swahili (for example) I would be lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A quick search shows no mention of Illusions of Entrepreurship. Excellent book, btw.

That book claims that existing companies create more jobs than new companies. Starts at page 153: Here's the google books link: <http://bit.ly/m4vXV>

</comment><comment><USER56> Is there really a lack of people in the USA today who want to start companies? It might be a zero-sum game -- X dollars available for startups; if you let in a bunch of people, the startup dollars will go there rather than to people already here.

<comment><USER39> But that is where the beauty of having the market decide comes in. If a person from India but founding a company in the US has a better idea, then the money SHOULD go to her. That is best for the investors, and it is best for America, because a better idea will build a better company that will create more jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's called Eb5 [http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f...](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ff96138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD)

</comment><comment><USER58> I like how you used Etherpad. Watching the essay unfold gave me even more insight into your thoughts on the issue. ie: what topics took a while to iron- out and how you formulated your sentences.

I'd like to see a few more of these in Etherpad.

</comment><comment><USER59> You Nailed It PG(an immigrant living in the US). Simple as that. Nailed it.

</comment><comment><USER60> immigrants who make it big in internet seem to be from young kids who gain permanent residency later

are there any greencard holders having thru h1b (6 years?) and then found startup and be as successful?

</comment><comment><USER61> agree I'm facing the same problem. I can't get VISA to USA or Europe and thus start a startup there.

Many people are facing the same problem

</comment><comment><USER14> Thankyou pg for writing on this topic!

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm sure WebMynd would appreciate it

</comment><comment><USER63> There is a simple alternative – remove the stupid restrictions on H1B visas. The restriction that if you loose/quit your job that you have to be out of the country in 60 days is bad for three reasons.

The first reason is that the employer knows his worker is dependent on him – he can thus get away with a lower salary, etc... The second reason it is bad is that you cannot quit and start a start-up – if you do not have a sponsoring company you must be out of the country in 60 days.

The third reason is that it deters people from going to the USA. I really want to go to California next year – but with that Visa system it is not going to happen (probably going to London). Compare the US system and the UK's General Highly skilled Visas (e.g. [http://www.workpermit.com/uk/uk-immigration-tier- system/tier...](http://www.workpermit.com/uk/uk-immigration-tier- system/tier-1/general-highly-skilled-migrants.htm)) – it is really no fuss and valid for a time period.

There are already more than 5 million Mexicans in the US. Would 1 million engineers and scientists really be a bad thing?

<comment><USER64> Downvote for the "Mexicans" reference. Perhaps saying, "There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Would 1 million engineers and scientists be a bad thing?"

And, 1 million engineers and scientists would depress salaries in the US. That's a plus for founders, but a minus for engineers and scientists trying to find work.

I'm almost always on the side of greater immigration into this country, but I can see the downside of it as well.

<comment><USER63> > Downvote for the "Mexicans" reference. Perhaps saying, "There are over 11 > million undocumented immigrants in this country. Would 1 million engineers > and scientists be a bad thing?"

Saying there are over 5 million Mexicans in the USA is a completely factual statement. It is true that you have much higher immigration (both legal and illegal) from neighbouring countries than parts of the rest of the world.

> And, 1 million engineers and scientists would depress salaries in the US.

Maybe. But either companies move to where the engineers are (outsourcing, new companies) or the engineers move to where the companies are. In the latter case they still pay tax for the US.

And American engineers will have a depressed salary in any case.

<comment><USER64> It's actually 13 million Mexicans: [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/Study-13M-Mexican- nat...](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/Study-13M-Mexican-nationals-in- US/UPI-60041239814839/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Sorry, but I don't think that this makes much sense. INS already has their hands full, and it wouldn't be much fun for them to have to check up on thousands of startup founders to be sure that they're in fact running their business (1) viably, and (2) according to their agreed business plan.

The system would be unbelievably easy to cheat. It also would be stupid easy to turn a "startup" into a money laundering scheme.

Don't take this the wrong way: I really wish that there were an easy way to let legit founders into the US. But it just isn't practical.

<comment><USER66> Wow, who up-votes this junk?

Let's see:

 _The INS has their hands full..._

PG said: 10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards

For comparison, there were 591,050 student and exchange visas granted in 2007 [1]. If the INS can handle checking up on individual students following educations via Universities, they can do the same with 1/200th the number of startups via investment firms.

 _The system would be unbelievably easy to cheat_

Oh, how? And why is accreditation a viable solution for Universities, but not investors?

 _I really wish... but it just isn't practical_

Give one shred of evidence aside from senseless pontification and I might consider it.

1\. <http://www.studyusa.com/English/articles/visa2.asp>

<comment><USER65> _"PG said: 10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards"_

Yes, in terms of people. But you fail to understand that it's _an entire new process and system_ that would have to be invented and executed.

You just don't think like a con-man. Universities have quite a bit on the line, such as accreditation. A private company has next to nothing on the line. Anyway, here's how I'd do it:

1\. First off, I'd need to know somebody in the US who has a viable business and would vouch for me. Because immigrant communities support business focused on their interests, this wouldn't be very difficult. Of course they'd agree, because of the benefits for the home country (sending money home, etc.).

2\. Have them offer fake investments to me and a pool of founders. Get approved by INS/State.

3\. Once in the US, work as I please. Funnel this money back into the "startup" as profits. Plenty of startups can't even turn a profit, so financials wouldn't have to be impressive.

4\. Rinse, repeat. The same business would only get approved so many times, but there are _tons_ of businesses here.

Now, for the unscrupulous way (since there's nothing particularly immoral about the previous scenario). Note that I'm for the legalization of drugs, but that's not the point: The US gov't is sure as hell against that.

1\. Have associate(s) in the US prop up a shell of a business that appears to be legitimate. Have them offer a huge investment for what appears to be a startup's credible business plan.

2\. Move in under an alias with fake documents.

3\. Funnel drug money through the "startup," which would be an ideal money laundering node. Because the plan is intended to produce successful businesses, nobody would blink an eye at the eye-popping profits. Just bullshit as much as necessary...if YouTube cooked the books, they could convince people that they were turning $150M profit annually easily. Show your cards as you please, since you're holding the deck.

4\. If things get even remotely hot, leave the country. So much money's been successfully processed at this point that it's undoubtedly a net win. Hell, say you're flying to Lima to make a commencement speech on business. Nobody would stop you. The associates could claim ignorance obviously, as you were just some entrepreneur they put their hopes and dollars in. Even if the startup were irrevocably linked to money laundering, you're back home and extradition isn't happening, since you used a false identity.

5\. Rinse, repeat with other associates.

 _"Give one shred of evidence aside from senseless pontification and I might consider it."_

Evidence on a virgin immigration plan? I'm sure there's plenty out there!

Let's flip this: Tell me how you prevent either of the two previous scenarious, short of having the gov't handle the entire recommendation/approval process, which would pretty much defeat the purpose.

 _Sigh_ ... people are so naive.

<comment><USER23> I think pg's point of investors accreditation system is that it's not the government you have to cheat, but the group of pre-selected investors. (I'd imagine something similar to professional guilds... you have to be recognized by peers to be in part of the investor group of deciding who can get invested with this visa, for example).

The obstacle I see is that the stake of having authority to say who can get visas for work is very high these days (not like student visas); lots of people are seeking ways to get working visas desperately. So there would be lots of political frictions to introduce investor's accreditation system.

But yet, if politicians are convinced that this is crucial to revitalize the economy (which is probably one of the highest priority items), much of such muddling of power games may be avoided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> What I find fascinating of the idea is the multiple win-win:

1) The USA benefits: more companies that pay taxes and pay for services, and create jobs for americans.

2) The founders benefit: they get a chance to bring their ideas to fruition, and get rich.

3) Paul Graham benefits: improved competition in the startup world would bring better founder teams to Y-Combinator.

4) The general public benefits: good ideas get implemented and are available as services that improve, in some way, your life.</comment>


List of URLs checked by Twitter for its app targeting - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f <comment><USER2> This makes me ask questions that Twitter shouldn't be making me ask.

I don't presume to stop them from doing whatever they're permitted to do, so instead I ask myself:

"Should I uninstall the apps mentioned as their presence leaks information about me, or should I uninstall Twitter for spying on my device?"

Initially I thought that I use Twitter, so that must be high value... I'll delete the other apps. Then, looking through the list it occurs to me that as this expands I'd need to uninstall _everything_ else _except_ Twitter to render their spying useless.

Now I feel that the best solution is a very simple one: Uninstall Twitter and use the web version instead.

I guess that's not the outcome they want to be steering people towards.

Edit: The web version feels like a very old iOS app. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's fast and snappy.

<comment><USER3> You can opt out from the Twitter App. Or enable "Limit Ad Tracking".

<comment><USER4> Yes. but what enrages me is that this can only be done from the app. _after_ you've installed (/upgraded) it and they have scanned your device.

My current twitter install on android doesn't have the feature to disable it yet, which means that i have to follow an upgrade path that includes updating -> toggling flight mode -> opening the app (if that works) and then toggling the setting.

I cannot disable it from the web interface, or this is put under a very obtrusive description.

<comment><USER3> Limit Ad tracking is an iOS system setting. For Android you can set "Opt out of interest based-ads" (Accounts -> Google -> Ads). You can set both before upgrading the app and no scan will take place.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty sure that Android setting opts you out of Google-interest based ads, ie the same setting you can change via [https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads](https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads)

I doubt that changes anything for Twitter. AFAIK it doesn't stop an application doing scanning like this.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't forcefully stop apps to do this but Twitter reads and obeys that setting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Third party Twitter clients.

Tweetbot: [https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gi...](https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gistfile1-txt-L1026)

Twitterrific: [https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gi...](https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gistfile1-txt-L2006)

Twitterfon: [https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gi...](https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gistfile1-txt-L1505)

Echofon: [https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gi...](https://gist.github.com/genadyo/295a5e8f0d743f57137f#file- gistfile1-txt-L217)

Am sure there are others.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for sharing my list :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Under Android, it's possible to get a list of all installed applications by querying the packageManager: [https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/PackageManager.html#queryIntentActivities\(android.content.Intent), int), rather than "brute-forcing" known URL schemes. This doesn't require any special permissions.

<comment><USER9> Doing it this way means it'll work on iOS and Android, and it'll continue to work if the installed applications API is ever removed or blocked by a permission. Using the URL scheme essentially can't be blocked because it's necessary for inter-app comms.

<comment><USER10> _Using the URL scheme essentially can 't be blocked because it's necessary for inter-app comms._

It could be blocked via a permission as well (and just look like the target app is not installed.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you read the details closely of what Twitter is doing here, it's even worse than I had imagined:

From their help center [[https://support.twitter.com/articles/20172069](https://support.twitter.com/articles/20172069)]

 _How will I know this feature is turned on for my account? We will notify you about this feature being turned on for your account by showing a prompt letting you know that to help tailor your experience, Twitter uses the apps on your device. Until you see this prompt, this setting is turned off and we are not collecting a list of your apps._

So, they collect the data first, and then they prompt the user telling them what they have done. This is the opposite of privacy friendly.

 _How do I turn this feature off and remove my data from Twitter?_

Note carefully the overloaded meaning of the word Twitter here. Do they mean the Twitter app, or the Twitter service, or Twitter as a company? Grammatically and meaning-wise, the first one is the only one that makes sense. Which is very alarming...

Because it means, after they "remove" your data from the app, they still have your data. Or does it? It's not completely clear, which is part of the problem. The help text reads one way (no worries, you can delete your data) on a quick reading, but a completely different way on a careful reading.

 _You can easily adjust the setting that allows Twitter to collect a list of apps on your mobile device. Once you turn off the setting, we will remove your app graph data from Twitter and stop future collection._

Again, one has to wonder what they mean by "remove your app graph data from Twitter." Call me paranoid but to me this reads like weasel words and they still keep a copy of your data, just not on Twitter, whatever they mean by that.

So to recap, the really bad known thing here is they collect the data first, and ask permission later. The possibly really bad unknown thing is maybe they keep the data even after you think you are asking them to get rid of it, while trying to make it appear that they don't.

<comment><USER12> The problems are:

1\. There is no API abuse or sneakiness happening here. They are just using a known, unrestricted API: [https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/Documentation/UIKit/...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/Documentation/UIKit/Reference/UIApplication_Class/index.html#//apple_ref/occ/instm/UIApplication/canOpenURL):

2\. Perhaps the API should be restricted?

I don't know how I feel about it. I don't know if I care if Twitter knows what other apps I have installed. This API is what allows Tweetbot to open links in Chrome, and I'd hate for that to disappear.

Maybe Apple can update the API to prompt the user and store that permission for each app?

<comment><USER11> I also feel that I don't care much if Twitter has my app list (partial app list, that is, because not all apps have URLs).

But how you and I feel isn't the point. Each user will have their own feelings about their privacy, and they should have the ability to control their own information in the way they prefer, with prior consent and opt-in, not opt-out once the data is already taken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What am I looking at?

<comment><USER14> Twitter abuses an ios api to check if they can open a url with a specific app scheme. If the api returns true it means you have the app installed. You are looking at the list of apps that twitter checks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm a bit out of the loop on corporate data gathering. Why is Twitter collecting this data?

This is a sincere question, from their point of view what exactly are they doing and why?

<comment><USER16> It's for better ad targeting [http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/11/26/twitter-is- tracking-user...](http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/11/26/twitter-is-tracking- users-installed-apps-for-ad-targeting/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am sorry for my ignorance, but can somebody explain what this list means? How are they checking for those URLS? Are they monitoring all URLs I visit in my device? Should I be concerned?

<comment><USER18> They check these urls to see if you have the associated app installed.

Legitimate uses would be things like checking if you have Google Chrome installed and giving you the option to open urls in Chrome instead of Safari.

Assuming this list is accurate, many people might wonder why they need to know if you have Angry Birds Star Wars II installed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> having worked for a company on the whitelist (and worked with Twitter directly for "whitelisting" scenarios), i would have to guess this is for proper deep linking integration.

that is, if Twitter links to "App X", Twitter needs to know if it can open App X directly or if it needs to direct the user to some website for App X instead.

i'd blame Apple for making this a notorious pain in the ass before i blamed Twitter for trying to fix it.

<comment><USER20> Could you expand on what aspect of deep linking requires Apple whitelisting?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Now I'm done with Twitter. Its a low value noise machine anyway.

<comment><USER22> I recently deleted my twitter account and I don't miss it a bit. Slowly getting there with Facebook but it's harder because I use Messenger a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Probably dumb question, but why is every app registering their own URL scheme? Is that an iOS requirement?

<comment><USER24> It is mainly for deep-linking from urls in other apps/sites. Primarily so apps can reenter previous states rather than opening on the app, in some cases to push data to the app.

Example: Game app has buttons on a website to play specific levels with some special powerup, so you can link to it just like a website but in the app play the level and bypass the main screen etc.

It is a bit like DNS hosts within the devices but the only problem is it is not standard and there is no listing so it is more like old school file type or port claiming, there may be clashes/name collisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> One wonders if I have a large quantity of ad bucks to spend, and I'm willing to sign a NDA, if I could "target users who have installed X, Y, and Z competitors' apps?" (ditto for FB)

</comment><comment><USER26> Will Apple phase out URL schemes now that we have extensions ?

But the thing is that URL schemes are very convenient in some cases.

One possible solution could be that you have to include all the URLs your app intends to open in its plist file. So if you're going to list hundreds then they can go ahead and reject those apps. But this wouldn't provide perfect privacy.

So my guess is that URL schemes will be yanked soon and all developers will be forced to use extensions for inter-app communication.

<comment><USER27> Not so sure URL schemes are that high on the chopping block. Using custom URL schemes is a suggested practice for Today extensions to launch their containing app with contextual information[1]

[1] - [https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Founda...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Foundation/Reference/NSExtensionContext_Class/index.html#//apple_ref/occ/instm/NSExtensionContext/openURL:completionHandler):

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I commented in one of the other threads, and said,

I'm really curious what the Apple AppStore review team has to say about this.

<comment><USER29> Well how should they know? They have a sort of binary parser that searches for unauthorized use of some (non-public) APIs, but I don't see how this use of an authorized API (-canOpenURL) would be problematic.

They won't be able to see what is going on unless the start the app under Instruments and document how many calls to this function are made.

<comment><USER28> Well, first of all, they probably know by now :) So I'm wondering if that will change anything.

I would also think they _are_ doing run time profiling, if only to catch private API usage via NSSelectorFromString. Maybe they can add a test for excessive canOpenURL calls now.

Or maybe they don't care about this and more apps will do this kind of snooping going forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Twitter seems to honor "Limit Ad Tracking". At least I don't see the option and I have limit ad tracking turned on. If that is the case, then I don't think I'm very concerned.

</comment><comment><USER31> Should I be flattered that two of my apps are on there?

<comment><USER32> Totally! Why wouldn't you be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Next thing you know, Apple limits the number of URLScheme checks any given app is able to do within a single session... should be interesting!

</comment><comment><USER34> I read "petrescuesaga" as "Petres Cuesaga", the possible name of a developer. A Google search proved my brain wrong :)

</comment><comment><USER35> What are all those fb[0-9]+://-schemes?

<comment><USER36> This is URL scheme an app needs to add to their info.plist in order to integrate the Facebook SDK. The number after fb is the ID of their page/app on Facebook.

<comment><USER28> In particular, I think it's used for switching apps - your app switches over to the facebook app (if installed) using fb:// perhaps, and if the user logs in and approves the fb-app, the facebook app will ask iOS to open "fbYOURNUMBER://", bouncing the user back to the app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Pretty interesting that it includes our Thermo app as well.

</comment><comment><USER38> My Lenovo phone comes with integrated firewall out of factory... Just saying.

<comment><USER39> Has nothing to do with this issue. Custom url handlers respond inside the device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Has it been confirmed that these are being used for ad targeting? Or is this just a frenzy of indignation based on speculation?

[Update: OK, wow, yes I see, Twitter themselves announced the tracking: [https://support.twitter.com/articles/20172069](https://support.twitter.com/articles/20172069)]

There are legitimate uses for this information in an app, such as for when a user is given the chance to tweet about a high score from a game, for example, and the app URL for the game could be used to get them back into the game app after they finish in the Twitter app.

I'm not saying this is the case (I don't know). It would be interesting to see whether all the apps in the list have some way that they interact with the Twitter app.</comment>


Ask HN: Can anyone recommend a logo designer? - <AUTHOR>

Just wondering if anyone has any recommendations for a logo designer/illustrator for a mascot logo design? Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> Give <http://www.crowdspring.com/how-it-works/> a shot. You can name your own price, describe what you need and then watch designers spring into action. Works great.

</comment><comment><USER3> Check out this from on WHT, you might find someone there: [http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=addaf02caed...](http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=addaf02caedc2e31ce2c1c9574f68316&f=56)

</comment><comment><USER4> David Pache (<http://dribbble.com/helveticbrands>) Sean Farrell (<http://dribbble.com/brandclay>)

</comment><comment><USER5> A Mountain View & Tokyo based design firm (<http://www.goood.jp/>) These guys are really cool and affordable.

</comment><comment><USER6> This guy: <http://dribbble.com/nicogarcia> (Me) Drop me a line if you think I can help you.

</comment><comment><USER7> I design mascots and logos, shoot me an email at the email in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've used logoloft before - pretty good for not too much $, in my opinion

</comment><comment><USER9> 99designs is worth a shot.

</comment><comment><USER10> Jeff McWeeney : <http://McWeen.com> \- Very down to earth guy, very affordable, a very impressive portfolio. An expert at listening to the customer.</comment>


Show HN: Movie-dialog-summarizer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/vackosar/movie-dialog-summarizer <comment><USER2> I found it very interesting too.

I am very familiar with this classic movie. Nearly everyone in this film went on to have a substantial career. Your method gives the essence of the story, but robs us of the beauty of this movie. You've removed Sidney Lumet's direction and most of Reginald Rose's dialog.

Please tell me a practical application for this.

By the way -- I don't want to diminish what you seem to have accomplished from a technology standpoint. That's impressive. But what is the itch being scratched?

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks interesting, but I'm not sure what the shell script takes as input.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've added usage into description.</comment></comment>


Introduction to Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://www.cio.com.au/article/314348/introduction_clojure <comment><USER2> Don't arrange your closing parens the way the author of this article has unless you want to look like a clueless noob.

Edit: There are other style problems with this article. Worst is probably this one:

      Bad: (map (fn [x] (fibonacci x)) [1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10])
      Good: (map fibonacci (range 1 11))

<comment><USER3> Clojure has the highest percentage of "noob" users of any language. It's just 2 years old and everybody is pretty much wetting their feet with it just now.

<comment><USER4> Very true. But then the author of the article needs to get his feet a lot more wet because its plain and simply bad code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone point me to a paper giving Clojure's formal semantics, if there is one?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this is as close as it gets:

<http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html>

<comment><USER6> The documentation at <http://clojure.org/> is pretty good as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This guy doesn't have any idea about Functional programming. I don't understand why people are encouraging him by voting up. Very strange.</comment>


Show HN: Collect payments is hard, we fixed it. - <AUTHOR> https://simplefunnel.io <comment><AUTHOR> While building products online, a fundamental thing almost all of them needed was the ability to collect payments and send an email to deliver the product.

Now, collecting payments is hard and if you're someone who doesn't have a background in engineering, its worse.

While there are some solutions, I couldn't find any that would allow me the flexibility to replace it with any product till I find a good product market fit.

So i decided to build one for myself.

Now more than ever as people attempt to start online businesses and having received a lot of positive feedback during beta, Its now finally available for wider use.

Take a look, drop questions or comments below and let me know what you think.

And of course, If you were affected by COVID-19. Send me a message. You don't have to pay anything.</comment>


Any tips on how i could learn Ruby/RoR if i dont know jack bout coding and dont have a helping hand around where i live? Please help :S - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Being self-taught, I would suggest 3 things.

My first suggestion is to take a course in a programming langauge at a local college. Learning a language, any language, will start you off faster than struggling with it on your own. C# or VB.NET are non-intimidating and taught everywhere as they're the workhorse languages in many microsoft-based IT shops. They're not cool and hackerish, but have the instant gratification of easy GUI building which is helpful to beginners, and you can avoid memory management which is very intimidating to beginners. They're also taught EVERYWHERE so even in East Chucka, someone will have these courses in some format. Appreciation for the finer things (ruby and dynamic languages) is more clear when you've seen how the other half lives. Also, if you learn one of these languages, you can possibly get a QA or support job to pay for more classes. Lisp, Ruby and and Scheme are cool, but won't pay the bills while you learn.

The next thing I'd suggest is to come up with an idea for something you're passionate about creating, and learn the technologies you need to make it as you go. Having a project you're excited about is the difference between being hungry for a technology and choking it down like a cold piece of liver.

And finally, as the other posts mentioned, get the pragmatic programmers book when you're ready to learn ruby. I'd suggest starting with a Ruby course, but I'm not sure they exist on any wide-scale. Remember though, that book is focused on the framework, not the ruby language. Once you know how to code, you'll be all set.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm assuming you're young. Please look at other posts, and compare them to your own. You probably don't realize that you're presenting yourself poorly. I say this with good intentions: When I was a 15 year old, I posted a totally inane and off-topic question on sci.crypto about my chemistry project. At least your question is relevant to this group. :)

If I'm right, and you are young, the best thing you can do is to learn a core set of skills, don't worry about RoR yet. Go to the website <http://www.drscheme.org/> where you can d/l free software and a free textbook. If you study the book carefully, if you work hard, you will learn a lot.

</comment><comment><USER4> First, choose the right programming language for the job. Languages are tools not religions as some would have you believe. Then, buy the best book on the language. Do your research, every language has the one "must read" text. Finally, with book in one hand, computer in front of you, and optionally a pot of coffee brewed, get hacking. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=14675>

<http://www.ruby-forum.com/forum/3>

I tought myself

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thank you very much to all for your response extremelly helpful, i have a few manuals and ebooks and gonna get into "hacking", tho right no dont understand a lick, hope it soon will change :D

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> haha sorry bout the post, and im not that young im 19 :s</comment>


Trying to Convince People to Change (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://www.camilletalk.com/whilefalse/2016/4/1/you-can-bring-a-horse-to-water <comment><USER2> This is a good piece. Basically it is saying people aren't dumb. That person you are trying to get to read the agile manifesto isn't not reading it because they are lazy, stupid or arrogant. They've been around the block and know they don't need it. Also not everyone wants to be the top player, and apply a "growth mindset" and "can do attitude" to everything. They just want to be paid to code without unnecessary invented hassles. Let them.

<comment><USER3> > This is a good piece. ... That person you are trying to get to read the > agile manifesto isn't not reading it because they are lazy, stupid or > arrogant. They've been around the block and know they don't need it.

Being "around the block" is no excuse for not keeping up to date in your profession. True, software development has faster hype cycles than other professions such as medical or legal professions. However, just as experienced doctors need to keep up to date with standards of care, software developers also need to keep up with best practices.

The larger takeaway from this piece is that you don't need to read full books to understand latest developments. A developer that knows 10 programming languages does not need to read a 500 page book to learn their 11th language. But they should read one or two articles, and try a tutorial to get what they need from it.

Software development is a profession, and like every profession it's subject to constant change. Keeping your head down and ignoring new developments is simply malpractice.

<comment><USER4> > Being "around the block" is no excuse for not keeping up to date in your > profession.

I work in the public sector where we both develop and buy software, and because of this I get to sit at both ends of the negotiation table. Agile dies the moment contract negotiations begin, because no one is actually going to give you money to start building a house and see how much you finish before you run out.

Maybe agile actually works somewhere in academia, a start up or deep inside giant tech, but it sure isn't how most of us buy software. We setup requirements, detailed project plans, risk analysis and all those other things the agile manifesto tells you not to. Sure we'll call it agile, but it's agile in name only and by then we would probably have been better off if no one ever read the damn thing.

<comment><USER3> > I work in the public sector where we both develop and buy software ... Agile > dies the moment contract negotiations begin

There's a pretty famous public sector counter example: the initial ObamaCare website. The initial site was contracted out using traditional waterfall development methodology and was a complete disaster. The rebuild was done with a far smaller team, at a far lower budget using agile methodologies.

Things move pretty slowly in government, and I entirely understand that the existing government processes with big lump sum payments and rigorous accountability are not very conducive to agile development. However, it's not impossible (as with ObamaCare, it has been done before). The next time you have control over these negotiations, maybe push a bit harder for a more agile approach and see if it works.

<comment><USER5> (I worked on the HealthCare.gov rescue team.)

You have it right. We didn't explicitly follow the agile manifesto (or any other manifesto), but we did focus on shipping working software incrementally.

There are successor organizations, like Nava and US Digital Service, that have encoded principals and playbooks: [https://playbook.cio.gov/](https://playbook.cio.gov/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do managers give books as a work assignments and provide time/place to read the book. If you want an employee to "change the way they react to stress" giving them 8 hours of voluntary (but not really) homework probably doesn't help. If you want them to read it make it a required task and provide them work time, otherwise management/company is expecting the employee to give up personal/family time to read the book off the clock.

<comment><USER7> In the USA, at least, they aren't required to provide a time/place, but they would be required to compensate you for it, by the Fair Labor Standards Act [1]. It sounds exactly like "Lectures, Meetings and Training Programs", which means it qualifies as "working time". It's _on_ the clock.

[1]: [https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs22.pdf](https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs22.pdf)

Schedule a workday to spend reading the book, or bill the company for taking up half your weekend.

If this worker is in a union, this is precisely the sort of issue to take up with the steward. Most programmers aren't, but apparently non-union workers already have an "an open and direct dialogue" with their managers, though it's kind of hard to tell if that's the case here since the manager is the one who can't seem to schedule one simple task for the employee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this appropriate behavior for managers? It seems not to me, but my experience is limited. It seems to me that "convincing someone to change" is inappropriate in just about, if not every, context and that being a manager doesn't make it more appropriate, it just makes the appropriate feedback (negative response, criticism) impossible.

If I found myself in this situation with a manager, I would ignore them to the degree possible and failing that, avoid them entirely, whatever that meant. Outside of a managerial context, I would just say something rude.

</comment><comment><USER9> If someone had given her a book and askes her to read it and "change" would she? People always don't understand why someone else can change while at the same time feeling frustrated at their own ability to change. Turns out change is _hard_ and handing someone a book and calling it a say doesn't really cut it.

Moreover, there's probably a lot of things employees want to change about their boss and yet, they never hand him a book. This leads to bosses thinking the problems are never them.

</comment><comment><USER10> I had some troubles ages ago and one of my bosses hinted me to read the Siddharta by Herman Hesse. Today I wouldn't remember a single word about the book, but back then I liked it a lot although I experienced it from an atheist point of view. Did it solve my problems? Not at all since most of them were caused by a PM in the same company whose assholery was right on par with his utter technical incompetence, but the suggestion by that boss may have helped afterwards; who knows...

</comment><comment><USER11> I've learned to interpret the word _convince_ to mean _provoke debate_.

Influence, persuasion, and other forms of leadership rarely benefit from convincing.

</comment><comment><USER12> A good joke to make the same point:

How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb? Just one, but only if the lightbulb is willing to change.

</comment><comment><USER13> My grandpa used to say

"No matter how much a snake sheds skin. It's still a snake"

<comment><USER14> But humans are not snakes.

But behavior is not a skin, but the core, unless it is an act.

<comment><USER15> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)

<comment><USER14> I know. Unfortunately, that metaphor is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'v noticed this pattern with people in way more situations than just team member - manager. Spouses, friends, colleagues etc are prone to just "suggest reading a book" to solve an inter-personal problem.

And I've never seen this work in the slightest. Just anecdotal info I know, but I do think its a general pattern.

If someone is disagreeing, and you ask them to "read a book to change their mind" you basically ask them to admit they are not right and that you have power over them. Two things that people don't like in general.

And its pretty sad, because we are here in this civilization of ours mainly because of books. Ideas that survive generations and mold societies. And reading what someone else is really into is actually quite beneficial.

I personally try to at least skim through suggestions given from others, as its such an awesome tool to understand where someone is coming from. And would give you _much_ better leverage in any further interactions.

Even if its the fact that you've taken someone at their word to actually read something, you gain a "favor" in negotiating terms. And you would also know the language that the other person is thinking in.

Developers are very prone to "if everything else fails read the instructions" kind of thinking, and book suggestions are basically instructions for people. And I think the advice of being better off if you just try to read that works in both cases, even if it goes against our natures.

</comment><comment><USER17> With the best kind of leaders / when the work is finished / the people all say / "we did it ourselves."

~Tao Te Ching

</comment><comment><USER18> Imagine a software engineer giving his/her manager 'Learn python in 30 days' so that he/she isn't clueless in her 'agile meetings' when interacting with software developers.

How many managers would be willing to go through the book and do the exercises? I don't know, not many :)

</comment><comment><USER19> You don't change people. You change the rules and they either adapt or find a better place with better and more suitable rulles. This is what freedom is about, and a good management.

I like this blog post about this problem: [https://www.yegor256.com/2018/10/09/can-you-control- us.html](https://www.yegor256.com/2018/10/09/can-you-control-us.html)</comment>


Apple ImageIO Denial of Service - <AUTHOR> https://www.landaire.net/blog/apple-imageio-denial-of-service/ <comment><USER2> It looks like this was fixed at some point, as it doesn't appear to crash any longer.

<comment> shawn-butler Hangs the current tab in Safari Version 9.0.3 (11601.4.4) OS X 10.11.3 (15D21).

      Thread 0 Crashed:: Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread
      0   com.apple.ImageIO.framework   	0x00007fff8944c43c read_user_chunk_callback + 118
      1   libPng.dylib                  	0x00007fff85645451 png_handle_unknown + 67
      2   libPng.dylib                  	0x00007fff8563b5cf _cg_png_read_info + 234
      3   com.apple.ImageIO.framework   	0x00007fff89411de6 initImagePng + 1642
      4   com.apple.ImageIO.framework   	0x00007fff894091e0 makeImagePlus + 1375
      5   com.apple.ImageIO.framework   	0x00007fff894084ce _CGImageSourceGetPropertiesAtIndexInternal + 56
      6   com.apple.ImageIO.framework   	0x00007fff89408447 CGImageSourceCopyPropertiesAtIndex + 147
      7   com.apple.WebCore             	0x00007fff85686b0e WebCore::ImageSource::isSizeAvailable() + 62

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Crashes the tab (but not the whole browser) on iOS 9.3.1 on my iPad Air.

<comment><USER4> That was a mistake by me. I meant to say "your browser's renderer process will crash", not "your browser will crash".</comment></comment>


Open Source Events Get Burned By PayPal - <AUTHOR> http://pydanny.com/we-are-not-using-paypal.html <comment><USER2> Paypal is a long-time client of my consulting firm, and several of their trust and security people are good friends. They are not stupid or malicious. Unlike the author, they are cognizant of a basic truth about the Internet:

In any situation involving money, every loophole or mechanism for scamming people will eventually be discovered and then exploited to an extent you never believed possible. Just as the Internet has massively changed the basic economics of almost every industry, it has greatly reduced the risk and costs of widespread fraud to a level that would make Charles Ponzi cry with joy into his spaghetti.

There are teams of extremely intelligent and motivated people who spend their entire working careers figuring out ways to rip off Paypal (and Amazon, eBay, Google, Baidu, Bitcoin merchants, etc...) If a top tier company that deals with money on the Internet is problematic for a certain transaction, then you can be sure that is due to a real problem in the past that resembles that transaction.

Pydanny believes that Paypal's actions are without basis, so he has clearly identified a market inefficiency that is ripe for "disruption".

I think pydanny should take this opportunity to pitch his payments startup, PyPal, to pg and several other top-tier angels/VCs. Make sure to include a slide on fraud and loss prevention, and clearly outline the policy that will differentiate you from Paypal:

"The developer community is critical for the success of PyPal. In a situation where a PyPal account identified only by a Yahoo email address and with limited transaction history receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in deposits for a service that will not be delivered for months, we will not freeze that account under any circumstances. Especially if they self-identify as a Python developer."

Let me know how the pitch meetings go.

<comment><USER3> At its heart, though, this isn't a service problem; it's a customer service and UX problem.

Imagine that instead of the current Paypal interface, you had the following:

> Instead of having one email address to accept all payments, you created a > new sub-account for each event/product/other "stream of payments" that you > want to send/receive.

> Creating a "receive payments" sub-account pops up a wizard, that asks you > what these payments are expected to be relating to--a product you sell, a > subscription service, an event, donations, etc.

> If you pick "one-time event"--the fraud department is called down to verify > you and your business _up-front_. It all gets explained in the interface, > your sub-account just will be in a "verifying" state for a few days/weeks, > you'll get phone calls and have to submit paperwork to make it "active." > Meanwhile, the rest of your account continues to work and none of your other > payments get frozen.

> This is _on top of_ the fraud detection that already happens. If you > suddenly receive $50k, no matter what the sub-account _said_ it was for, > then sure, pause that sub-account and have the fraud guys take a look. But > if they pull up the account and the payment pattern exactly matches what > they themselves already OKed you to do up-front--then turn right around and > unpause it.

...

Now, this all _already happens_ with Paypal! Big corporations know what to do to make Paypal work like this--create a new Paypal account for each venture, get Paypal on the phone yourself and submit all the paperwork and get them to OK it before you declare it safe to start using that account, etc.

But none of this is obvious to the average small-business owner who may have never used an online payment system before. They just use one account for everything, get popular for whatever reason, accept a bunch of payments or donations all at once, and get their entire funding stream suddenly frozen while Paypal does due diligence that should have happened at the _beginning_ of the process, not right when the money is needed most.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How is this related to just conferences? PayPal doesn't have an anti- conference agenda.. There seems to be two things that set PayPal off.

1) Small volume to huge volume in a matter of days. 2) Taking payments for something happening in the future.

Story after story about both of these scenarios.

It seems obvious at this point that PayPal is not a good processor for things like pre-sales or events. It may be annoying but it's a liability for them and they do what they need to minimize it.

PayPal may be attractive because it's quick to setup but it seems easier for people to get in touch with a proper merchant account provider, discuss what you'll be selling ahead of time so they're prepared, and not get your funds frozen.

Update:

For anyone who is interested, here is PayPal's policy on pre-sales.

[https://www.paypal-businesscenter.com/content/presale- policy...](https://www.paypal-businesscenter.com/content/presale-policy-and- reserves)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, it's more than just conferences. But conferences and the will of the developer community are a critical factor in PayPal's ongoing success. Stripe and it's competitors are making inroads because of PayPal's difficulty of use AND their forbidding anti-fraud policies.

As for proper merchant account providers, tell that to people in countries where the majority of residents can get PayPal but not credit cards.

<comment><USER4> I understand that. We're in the same boat. We have to use PayPal because it's what our customers want. But it's up to the business / organizer to minimize the risk, same as it's PayPal's job to minimize theirs. Could split processing between merchants, attempt to get authorization for capturing at a later date, etc.

Great book by the way, just picked it up yesterday.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you liked the book!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't help but mention Bitcoin here. For international things like open source events, it would work just perfectly. Especially given the tech audience that is attracted to these, Bitcoin might be the easiest way to pay for opensource conferences.

<comment><USER6> This is just fantasy. You might as well tell people to trade in gold. If you want to operate a legal business above board there's no reason not to use the existing suite of financial services out there today.

<comment><USER5> Can you fax gold? Thought so. And cash, which is as traceable as Bitcoin, is not illegal either is it?

So what was your point exactly?

<comment><USER6> What is it, precisely, that you think justifies the use of bitcoin?

Here, let's make this simple. Just list, explicitly, the top 3 reasons for using bitcoin. Then explain how these reasons are unique to bitcoin and also how they fully justify dealing with the problems of dealing with bitcoin (variable exchange rates, difficulty of converting into local denomination funds, etc.).

<comment><USER7> 1) Bitcoins are easily transferable (P2P)

2) Bitcoin transactions are irreversible

3) No third party is involved for the essential transaction (in this case the exchange of Bitcoin(s) for a ticket)

If you use Bitcoins as a method of transporting money you can cash them out as soon as you get them (which is within a few minutes) and getting Bitcoins isn't as hard as people make it out to be.

<comment><USER3> > If you use Bitcoins as a method of transporting money you can cash them out > as soon as you get them (which is within a few minutes) and getting Bitcoins > isn't as hard as people make it out to be.

I'm surprised nobody has made a service that transparently uses bitcoins to send someone not-bitcoins:

[For the purposes of the example, let's call the sender of the money Alice, the receiver Bob, and the two instances of this Exchanger service Eddie and Edna. Eddie is local to Alice's legal/financial jurisdiction, and Edna to Bob's.]

1\. Alice, living in America, visits Eddie and tells him that she wants to send Bob, in Canada, $50 USD. Bob is only identified to Alice (and thereby to Eddie) by his bitcoin deposit address.[1]

2\. Alice pays Eddie $50 USD (cash, Paypal, ACH, pre-deposited funds, an IOU, whatever);

3\. Eddie buys bitcoins with those dollars, and transfers the bitcoins to Bob's address.

Then, separately, Bob set up his bitcoin bank with an "on deposit" webhook that calls Edna. When triggered,

4\. Edna, acting under an access token Bob granted her through the webhook, withdraws the deposit into her own bitcoin bank account;

5\. Edna immediately sells the bitcoins for CAD, thus preventing any currency volatility;

4\. Edna sends Bob an email saying "you've got $51.42 CAD[2]", with a URL;

5\. Bob visits the URL, and enters his [real, physical] bank account routing information;

6\. Edna does a wire-transfer from her account to Bob's bank account.

In this example, Bob and Alice never meet. Eddie and Edna never meet, nor have to trust one-another. The money is exchanged anonymously and securely. And yet, neither Alice nor Bob ever touch a bitcoin, or deal with the volatility of the currency.

Why doesn't this exist yet?

\---

[1] This could be encapsulated further if Eddie and Edna both subscribe to Ronald the name-Registrar; then Edna could transparently register Bob as "bob@ronald", and Bob could tell Alice to send her money to that alias.

[2] Assuming neither Eddie nor Edna take a cut of this transaction.

<comment><USER8> Ripple does something like this: <https://ripple.com>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've seen this problem come up multiple times, and had to talk to my bank when I got hit by it myself, but I absolutely understand why it happens. In our case it was because we moved from taking registration fees to taking accommodation deposits as well, and suddenly a large amount of money appeared in our account, and it does look very odd.

What I'd be interested in seeing would be somebody like eventbrite handling accommodation deposits and so forth as well as registration, then I could funnel everything through that. It's important that any such service release the funds to the event early so they can actually be used for running the event.

<comment><USER10> It is better not to use advance sales funds to run the event. Fund pre event expenses from sponsors and/or a line of credit. Then if, for some reason, you have to refund the advanced sales, the money will still be there. Board of directors should insist on such a policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a general rule of thumb. If you have a pretty predictable business then go with an all in one payment gateway and merchant accounts. By predictable I mean your growth is steady but not spectacular and not prone to any seasonal or suddenly dramatic spikes. Your price points don't move around dramatically. You're not something that will have a lot of chargebacks.

If your business DOES look like the above then engage a merchant account and explain to them what you are up to. It reduces the chances you'll get frozen.

If you can't qualify for a merchant account initially then use an all in one and build up a history that you can then take to a merchant account a little further down the road. (shameless plug for core.spreedly.com if you want the flexibility to shift and change easily)

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, I find it amazing that there is so much augery going on in this post. Ooo, maybe paypal hates python conferences! Maybe they just hate open source conferences!

And then they go on to describe how they refuse to kowtow to the obviously made up "needs of paypal's anti-fraud division".

There are lots of reasons to get mad at paypal but all too often the formula "We understood nothing about business, didn't even bother to familiarize ourselves with the law or financial regulations, and somehow problems resulted! We blame paypal!" is repeated all too often.

Let's look at this from the flip side. You decide you want to defraud a bunch of people, so you gin up a fake conference, it's easy to put up a fancy web page and sucker people in, then you take the money and run. You think this doesn't happen?

Paypal does have pretty crappy customer service, but if you expect to accrue a significant fraction of a million dollars in a paypal account and you don't think that somehow there might be some hoops to jump through then you are living in a fantasy world.

There's a reason why there is a lot of markup in event ticketing agencies (such as brown paper tickets, or event brite, or the hated ticket master), and it's not because it's such a fundamentally easy problem.

Edit: I'll say this again. It sucks when people who are working based on perfectly good intentions get hurt by the system but we live in a heavily regulated era. Expecting that you can operate a business without taking heed of the relevant regulations and business rules is massively naive. More so, it's a disservice to your customers. Imagine that you were running a 100% cash business. It would certainly make some parts easier, but don't you think people would start asking questions?

<comment><USER12> Agreed. I organized a startup conference (<http://thestartupconference.com>) for 3 years in 4 cities, always with PayPal as payment. Some advice: make sure you are incorporated. Definitely don't use a personal account to receive payments. Assume that most of the money may be stuck for a while, but know that you'll get your payments eventually, so arrange for backup financing.

Bottom line: if you do this as an amateur, expect to be treated like one. You can't script banking like you'd script ssh.

<comment><USER3> > know that you'll get your payments eventually, so arrange for backup > financing.

How easy would you say it would be to get a loan with "I have $N-thousand dollars stuck in my Paypal account, expected to clear" as collateral?

...actually, wait, that sounds like a [banking] startup idea:

> "We accept payments for an event into an escrow pool, then _lend_ you (with > interest) a percentage of the escrow-pool as an advance to set up the event, > then release the escrow-pool to you automatically if-and-only-if there > aren't too many complaints after the event [otherwise the issue goes to a > set-length arbitration, and then we either release the money to you, or > refund it in its entirety.] For trusted repeat event-creators, we may > increase the loan percentage up to 100%, and may delay loan-interest accrual > until after the event-date. We're also partnered with an event underwriter > who you can allow us to ensure your event with automatically, in case of > black-swan event failure."

Is anyone doing this? Is it even feasible?

<comment><USER13> This sounds like a cashflow loan, which FastPay does <http://gofastpay.com/>.

I think it can also be described as factoring <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoring_(finance)>. And lots of companies are involved in this space, though there is still room for improvement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe there's a business idea in payment processing for events.

<comment><USER5> I think there are enough payment services, we don't need another one. We need a central one. PayPal is really big and seen as many as _the_ way for online payments. And I agree, it works really easily and good. Only there are the problems as mentioned in the article...

<comment><USER15> Yes, and there are too many business software companies too. Why can't we just leave it all to Microsoft, and we'll all be happy?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Before we expanded our events (from 10-15 to 50-80) we dropped PayPal for WePay. Works great, and I can sleep at night.

</comment><comment><USER17> There is a good chance I will not attend your conference if it's not payable through PayPal. As a customer the extra safety net is very reassuring.

</comment><comment><USER18> All PayPal would need to do is contact by email 50 of the people who already paid and ask if the are confident the event is legit.

Since they don't, it shows they are a criminal organization.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is nothing new, like article states. What interests me is that why would tech group that most likely knew PayPal shameful history still trust them with payment solution? Why is it that every one and each enterprenour or new startup has to go with paypal?? Do you really want to learn on your own skin?? This is not 2006 anymore! There is so many other alternatives, some less expensive, that you just need to let PayPal go. Also most of them are very trustworthy so that customers don't really care whether you use PayPal, Dwolla, Stripe or Authorize.net.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason people are forced to use PayPal for events is that for many people credit cards are impossible to get. PayPal is often much easier for more people to use.</comment></comment>