Relaxing doesn't have to mean give everyone a green card. It could mean, I think that's what Tom means, that don't tie it to a set of investors rather tie it to the performance of an individual. Create 10 jobs, make 1MM revenue, get them verified by IRS, you're in the clear.

If we look at H1-B situation, what makes employers abuse it and almost makes H1-B holders useless (for anything other than their current employment) is the tie visa has with the employer. If we make H1-B holders move around freely between jobs then there is less room for abuse. IMHO.

Your idea isn't complementary to mine, and if it can't handle criticism on Hacker News, it certainly doesn't deserve to get a vote in the senate.

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

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

so be it: have at thee, gauntlet thrown.

I think we're getting too personal. Both of you make a good point:

Thomas says that there certainly will be companies who will be forced to raise a arbitrary amounts of money at an arbitrary time (in both cases, I mean "arbitrary" in relation to their business), even when they're otherwise doing well. On top of that, the VCs negotiating that round will know that their investment is what determines the fate of the company.

Dave points out that this is the best solution which is politically viable.

Both seem true, in my opinion. Still, and with all due respect, Dave's bio does say he "invests in startups if they let him" (emphasis mine). This law will create a class of startups that are forced to look for investment at a stage that may have make business sense, with the only strategy at a "fair" valuation being to play off investors against each other. This is certainly in the interests of people who invest in startups.

I wonder if bundling the interests of "those who can afford to lobby" into laws is the only way to get laws passed in the US nowadays.

> light a candle, don't piss on ours.

Hey mate, did you edit that into your comment or did I just miss it the first time? Because I upvoted you since I agree with the not mutual exclusive/harder to pull off thing, but no need to be crass like that. It doesn't help further the position we generally agree on, and clouds the discussion. tpt is a smart and good commentor anyways, even though we disagree some times - it's totally unnecessary to be crass with him like that.