On another point, I wonder how it worked from a visa perspective.
My understanding is working for your day job from another country can be tolerated, but it's usually outside of the law in most countries if you are on a regular tourist visa. So having a business resolving around that seems careless, as your customers might be subject to jail time and deportation. Think about it, it makes sense that this is not allowed, it will be way too easy to evade immigration laws if that was allowed on a massive scale.
I'm honestly surprised more "digital nomads" don't get caught at customs/border control with the advent of government surveillance of social media and LinkedIn.
CBP Agent: Purpose of stay?
Nomad: Pleasure
CBP Agent: types It appears you work for a remote startup. Are you currently working for them and/or do you plan on continuing to work within our country?
Maybe they let you stay if you're honest? Likely you're on the next flight out and you incur the possibility of a visa blacklist.
Disclaimer: Have an associate who has been blacklisted from US entry due to lying to CBP. Don't lie at border control.
Part of it is the law hasn't caught up yet (and smart nomads can fly under the radar), the other part is there is very little benefit for allowing remote workers in your country. Maybe they contribute a bit in consuming local services and housing before moving on, but if things go wrong (ie you're stranded because some idiot's business failed without contingency plans), those benefits get wiped out.
From the government's perspective, it's a razor thin margin policy endeavor. For you as a digital nomad, you think it's a great deal for them. For a government, they'll just work towards more tourism instead (which nets them greater ROI; way more tourists in the world compared to remote workers).
A country is seen like a household. You get to allow or disallow whoever you like, based on how you want your country to be run. That's called sovereignty.
It doesn't even matter if by coming in they'd made you more money, you could very well not want to get more money that way, but instead e.g. prefer your peace, cultural coherence, and lack of Starbucks.
How do the benefits to the host country get wiped out? The person is not allowed to legally work in the host country, and an appropriate visa specifically for this remote-work situation should become invalid once they were unemployed -- so they would just go, or get sent, back to their home country. The cost of the flight-home could be even part of the visa application fee!
You answered your own question (as I'm not aware of any visa application fees that include a one way ticket back to someone's home country as of today). Some types of visas require showing financial assets and the ability to support yourself, tourist visas (which digital nomads travel on) do not.
I'm not arguing about what the current state of the laws are regarding tourist visas. I'm arguing against "there is very little benefit for allowing remote workers in your country." With a reasonably constructed visa program specifically for remote workers, a host country could see a lot of benefits from allowing remote workers with what seem like minimal risks.
> With a reasonably constructed visa program specifically for remote workers, a host country could see a lot of benefits from allowing remote workers with what seem like minimal risks.
I somewhat agree with you, depending on the circumstances (as always, "it depends"). I'm pointing out where we are today. Be the change, sell it to countries if you want to see it implemented.
Remote workers are not paying local income taxes, but at some level they are benefiting from the services provided by local income taxes. Immigration policies restrict foreign workers in part to protect local workers, and tenuously you are still competing with other remote workers in the same country. Immigration policy as a whole has multiple, often conflicting goals, and digital nomads are an afterthought.
Tourists don't pay local taxes but benefit from services like roads or police assistance, and they're welcome because they do bring income to a country when their hotel/restaurant/souvenir shop pays taxes. I think remote workers should be seen similarly.
>CBP Agent: types It appears you work for a remote startup. Are you currently working for them and/or do you plan on continuing to work within our country? Maybe they let you stay if you're honest? Likely you're on the next flight out and you incur the possibility of a visa blacklist.
More likely they could not care less, and welcome the money you'll spend in the country.
Those "work" restrictions are for poor immigrants that they want to discourage coming in (the kind you see on Mexican border and such) not for first worlders with mucho dinero.
On the other hand, there's a bunch of stories about people traveling to present something at a conference getting into trouble because that the border guard said it needs a business visa of some kind. That's maybe different kind of work, but also something one would think not that important.
Because that’s clearly business, especially if you’re being paid or sponsored. If you get a specifically tourist visa and then admit to being in the country on business there’s probably going to be an issue.
If you're, say, a US citizen visas aren't required in a lot of cases and visas on arrival often don't distinguish between business and tourism.
Only the dumbest of the dumb operate a social media persona. Specifically because only the dumbest of the dumb give up control of their details, and dump them out in the open to get crawled and surveilled.
It’s the low hanging fruit that will get popped for a LinkedIn (or other social) avatar.
Word of mouth is the only professional channel that matters. It’s the only trustworthy channel that can be relied on in a professional context.
This is kind of a bullshit double standard. Billionaires and their family jetset around the world on a regular basis. Summers here, winters there. Maybe they have great accountants that account for the income that they accumulate during their extended stay and pay the appropriate income tax, something tells me that's not the case. I suppose I have made this a class argument, but my real point is the way has already been paved.
Do you owe local income tax just for being some place when stock you own pays a dividend? I'm not a billionaire, and neither have I ever paid income taxes while traveling for various accruals.
Many countries write their immigration laws in a way that allows immigration for people who will bring money/skills into the country. Some going so far as giving citizenship to people who invest enough in money into their economy.
Tax issues aside, people working remotely for a company based in another country would be a pretty clear source of incoming money into an economy, with very little added in terms of the kind of governmental infrastructure support that would usually needed to entice companies to locate/relocate there.
I'm not saying that's the way the laws are written; just that I could easily see a reason that it would makes sense to allow it.
The general advice seems to be "Don't be blatant about it" and generally keep stays under 30 days. The reality is that a lot of tech people taking a long vacation these days will have a computer with them and may well do some work. So it's really a difference of degree if you're working remotely full-time.
I fully expect the reality is that nobody is going to care about a digital nomad setting up shop for a month or two. I'm more thinking that there seems to be a good argument for some countries to create something along the lines of a "Remote Work Visa" that would clearly allow and encourage this kind of situation since (at least to me) it seems to be a win-win for everyone involved.
> it makes sense that this is not allowed, it will be way too easy to evade immigration laws if that was allowed on a massive scale.
How do these immigration laws even make sense themselves? What does a country loose when a freelancer travels in, lives there and spends money received from abroad?
1. Sovereign countries are permitted to care about whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. They can enact any laws they wish, protect their border however they wish, and grant anyone the right to work in their country based on whatever reason they may have. When a country is not granted the right to permit (or not permit) someone from entering/working, they lose a part of their sovereignty.
2. How would a country enforce its own tax laws without a formal entry/authorization process?
3. How would a country enforce international tax treaties without a formal entry/authorization process?
4. Working abroad, without any kind of work visa, would make it incredibly easy to evade paying taxes in your own country.
>4. Working abroad, without any kind of work visa, would make it incredibly easy to evade paying taxes in your own country.
But you're working abroad for a company that's treating you as if you are living in your own country and is, presumably, depositing your paycheck into a bank in that country. The fact that I'm traveling somewhere (on business or pleasure) during a given month basically doesn't affect anything. I travel maybe 100 days a year, in part outside the US. I don't consider myself a digital nomad but the reality is that I'm outside my home country for a decent chunk of the year.
Depending on the country you go to and its particular tax treaty with your home country, the fact that you are traveling AND working (I'm not capitalizing 'and' to be an asshole, rather I'm capitalizing it because I don't want to mislead people into thinking that being a tourist can fuck up their taxes) affects just about everything. Depending on the country, the type of income, and my authorization to be in that country, the funds earned when I am physically in another country could be taxable in my home country, in their country, in both countries, or (very rarely) in neither.
That may be true. (I'm not an accountant.) But, in years of travel to dozens of countries I have never remotely been aware of or filed taxes to a foreign country because I attended a conference or worked remotely for a few days. And that's included when I've had an explicit business visa in some countries.
Well, I suspect that pretty much everyone who travels does then. I can guarantee that no corporate executive who travels to dozens of countries a year is filing tax returns in those countries.
That executive wasn't entering those countries on a tourist visa, but neatly submitted that they are travelling for business purposes and have the appropriate business visa.
There is a limited range of activities permitted on those, including attending meetings and conferences.
Or they entered on the country on the US Visa Waiver Program or similar programs in other countries, which is surely the most common way to travel between first world countries (apart from inter-EU travel, which is more permissive again) and allows you to travel either for tourism or for business.
Yes, I would assume those executives get business visas where required, just as I do. In addition to meetings and conferences, those visas at least implicitly allow for continuing to do whatever is required for their "day job" back home.
But mostly, US and EU citizens in particular have visa waivers or, at most, a visa on arrival that lets them do normal business travel things. They just can't take a local job.
To the upthread comment, neither myself nor anyone I know has ever been aware of any particular tax implications associated with ordinary business travel.
> The fact that I'm traveling somewhere (on business or pleasure) during a given month basically doesn't affect anything. I travel maybe 100 days a year, in part outside the US.
It can affect your taxes dramatically. Bump that up to 335 days / year outside the US, and you're entitled to the foreign earned income deduction, which last I checked was about $120,000.
That's not evading, though; it's a formal deduction.
The country might like its own culture and peace just fine, and not appreciate an influx of freelancers and their local influence, regardless of any the monetary benefits.
The local poor might also not appreciate raised rents that benefit the few owning houses for rent (the AirBnB effect but with longer term "nomad" stays).
Western ex-pats in the developing world have a long history of being and behaving as self-entitled scum, which doesn't win many sympathies.
Besides hipster "nomads" are among the most insufferable of people.
But even more so, and on a more serious note, a lot of those laws are to discourage mass immigration from even poorer places, not the occasional "digital nomad".
Some countries seem to be fairly tolerant of this type of nomadic work and offer suitable visas to foreigners who don't compete with locals for jobs. It seems to work if you are working for a company that otherwise has no presence in the country.
On the other hand if your employer has a business presence in-country that can be quite problematic for the employer because it may cause them to run afoul of local visa regulations for employees. US companies also can run into tax problems if they make payments to people resident in other countries as this may look to the IRS like aiding tax evasion. (IANAL but have some experience with this issue from the employer perspective.)
There is definitely no nomad-friendly visa here in Thailand where I live. It's just pretty easy to fly under the radar because enforcement of laws of any kind is pretty lax. It gets expressed in things like how an immigration officer in one office will make a public statement that digital nomad work is fine, while at another office they raid a local coworking space looking for digital nomads.
To work legally in Thailand you need a work permit which you can only get on an eligible visa. A tourist visa or visa exempt stamp, which digital nomads enter on, is ineligible. And it requires an employer to sponsor it. Even volunteering requires a work permit.
As long as you keep it quiet and don't make enemies you can fly under the radar. But if someone rats you out or the police see an opportunity to make some easy money you will have a very bad time.
There's a pretty good argument that, if you're intending to fly under the radar, you should be hanging out at a beach with your laptop--not a co-working space that explicitly pitches itself for digital nomads.
Estonia is brilliant, the whole country has a buzz to it, like everyone is excited for the future. Totally the opposite of Finland just across the Baltic.
What countries are popular with digital nomads because they're cheap, tropical, and no one is probably going to ask too many questions if you hang out on your tourist visa for a good stretch.
You raise an interesting point. It's one thing to be on "vacation" for a month with a computer; no one is going to know how much remote work you're doing. It's another thing to have had a company specifically set you up as a digital nomad who will be working full-time.
Maybe this is why they were only (supposed to be) staying for a month at each destination?
I imagine from the host countries' point of view, they were the same as ordinary tourists - how they manage to finance their month-long "vacation" is usually not in the interest of the host country, and in this case, they happened to finance it by working remotely during the stay.
Now what happens when they exceed the maximum stay time of a tourist visa due to being stranded is a different question.
I don't think immigration laws, or more specifically the restrictions on work that come with tourist visas, were designed for this case. What these laws are intended to achieve is to prevent tax evasion and a cheap short-term foreign labour force being employed instead of locals.
Digital nomadism however usually implies that you run a properly set up business in some country and also properly pay taxes for any profit you generate. Sure, the country you're currently living in probably wouldn't reject getting a share of that profit, too, but the currently accepted taxation principle is that you pay your taxes where your business transactions take place. Admittedly, in a connected, digital economy this can cause problems, some of which are exploited by international corporations in order to save taxes, but this is the current legal framework.
As a digital nomad you also typically don't take away job or business opportunities from locals because your business doesn't happen in your country of residence anyway.
Finally, digital nomadism probably - and pretty much like ordinary tourism - is beneficial to countries these nomads flock to as well, simply because you pay for goods and services locally, which not only supports the local economy but in most cases implies some sort of indirect taxation / VAT as well.
That's quite the read. Though I would be really surprised that there was much a market for people willing and able to be digital nomads for an extended period and wanting a company to handle all the details for them. It seems a niche of a niche.
"I had set my life up and housing up to be gone for a year. I’d found people to watch my dogs. And now I’m five months in. I can’t just go back."
I think the issue is more about the lack of refunds and sudden need to make drastic life changes. These people had made a major commitment to a company that folded, sure they can get home, but their lives are still in chaos. It's a reasonable cautionary tale about making such a major life-changing commitment based on the services of a startup.
No need to wait. It looks like the rebrand that ultimately sunk them was because of a company that does exactly what they were doing, and is named similarly. Roam Inc.
So let's add:
4. Don't name yourself exactly like a competitor who does the same thing you do.
Can you actually be sued for just having the same business model as someone else? Is that even possible? If anything that's what most confused me, I thought they had a pretty interesting idea
Probably not but, if you have the same business model and then use trademarks, trade dress, etc. in a way that causes potential confusion, you can most definitely be sued. This is why you hire lawyers up-front.
I'm actually mildly curious what the quality of the accommodations is. I say it's not cheap but it's still a pretty good deal in the cities listed. (Though I'm guessing it's Bali that is the $500/room/week and hotels are cheap there even in Ubud.)
There is something to be said for the hostel environment without actually having to sleep in a hostel. But mostly it's not my thing when traveling.
RemoteYear is the competitor company that does exactly what WeRoam did. I'm in a coworking space in Medellin Colombia right now, and RemoteYear has rented out about half the space here.
There are 2 interesting facts in this article: 1. They were sued for name/trademark infringement by Roam (global shared living spaces), 2. They were sued for theft of trade secrets by RemoteYear (ostensibly the same business model). The article then talks about a huge % of their revenue was going to those settlements.
I feel bad for the customers who got stiffed on this startup. I don't really feel bad for the founders who built this company though.
I don't think these startups deserve sympathy. There's actually a handful of these scams going on. I've seen heavy advertising of these type of startups promising digital-nomad-work-from-anywhere lifestyle on Instagram and elsewhere.
At first I thought that for a fixed sum they were going to supply you X clients every month that would help you live those flashy digital nomad lifestyles they show - laptop on a cruise ship and what not. But that wasn't the case.
When I enquired one of them, they told me I need to deposit close to $10,000 first and they'll simply just arrange my travel plan for the next 3 months or so.
Basically a travel agent business model and not even a good one at that. You know what I did? I searched online for some decent local agents and asked them to give me the best price for a travel plan for 3 months, and spent much less than that $10,000.
A few weeks later, at a cloud conference, I bumped into one of their marketing people. I shared with her my feedback and why I thought it was deceiving. Her response? "Growth hacking" and I didn't even bother to exchange name cards. A few weeks later, they were in the local media for alleged lawsuits against them. And I was really happy.
I really, really hate these dishonest startups and I think they deserve no sympathy. They aren't victims, their customers are.
I have read stories about now famous startups and some of them did quite questionable things which they eventually corrected. they could easily have gone the other way.
I do feel bad for the customers that lost money, especially those who paid up and didn't even get to Destination 1 before the company went belly-up.
That being said, this sounds like a case of people who read aspirational Medium.com articles, getting got by the type of people who write those articles.
A business model that offers you the chance to seamlessly jet across different countries, with your lodging and workspace already set up the moment you land? I would think the logistics of such a business would need more local staff, more money and more liability protection than what a few dudes could put together with their savings and personal loans.
I definitely take some trips where my approach is to pick a destination and give someone a credit card number and say "Make it so."
But I got a weird vibe reading this article about effectively "digital nomad as a service" sort of thing.
And, as you say, you're either just a travel agent--in which case, how much value are you actually adding? Or you really are handholding and that requires a lot of feet on the street. (And brings me back to this being some sort of digital nomad as a service with guides. Which is OK I guess. But seems strange.)
It seems like they were the second, each group had 2 employees travelling with them. Which isn't bad especially in countries you might not be familiar with or speak the language.
I get it. I have taken guided trips when I have either not felt comfortable doing it myself, it was complicated/impossible logistically, or I just wanted a group. Something about a guided year-long digital nomad experience just feels odd though.
Digital nomads.. it works for short term I think. But this is why I’m opening my own business in Hong Kong. At least then, I have a business and an account that clients can pay me through. And I’ll open a rep office in Taiwan, which is where I’ll live. Yes I have to report everything to the US IRS, including my own income. But I won’t be double taxed, I stay legal with local laws, and I can still work remotely.
Just takes more effort. Anyone can do it, as long as you make enough money. And it’s worth it in the long run.
Really, it's time we started to reevaluate the whole "limited liability" thing. There's been numerous examples of people who start businesses, run too close to the wind, and then push the cost onto their suppliers, customers and employees (rather than the investors, who morally should wear the cost as they will be recieving the gains).
Old problem. Using limited liability to scam customers, employees, and suppliers is almost as old as limited liability itself.
Some individuals do it professionally. It's very hard - and expensive - to prove bad faith and fraudulent intent. It's even more expensive for victims to chase money owed even if fraud is proven.
There should definitely be more attention paid to directors/CEOs with a long trail of insolvencies and legal challenges. Instead of informal consumer reviews or nasty feedback on the BBB, it wouldn't be bad for every country to issue businesses and individuals with their own business equivalent of a credit (credibility) rating - one that's lenient on reasonable failure but comes down hard on anything that looks like a pattern of premeditated scamming and corporate legal trolling.
97 comments
[ 8.3 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadMy understanding is working for your day job from another country can be tolerated, but it's usually outside of the law in most countries if you are on a regular tourist visa. So having a business resolving around that seems careless, as your customers might be subject to jail time and deportation. Think about it, it makes sense that this is not allowed, it will be way too easy to evade immigration laws if that was allowed on a massive scale.
Being found to be breaching your visa conditions, especially in a pre-meditated way, is somewhat worse than being kicked out of an Airbnb.
Tread carefully.
CBP Agent: Purpose of stay?
Nomad: Pleasure
CBP Agent: types It appears you work for a remote startup. Are you currently working for them and/or do you plan on continuing to work within our country?
Maybe they let you stay if you're honest? Likely you're on the next flight out and you incur the possibility of a visa blacklist.
Disclaimer: Have an associate who has been blacklisted from US entry due to lying to CBP. Don't lie at border control.
From the government's perspective, it's a razor thin margin policy endeavor. For you as a digital nomad, you think it's a great deal for them. For a government, they'll just work towards more tourism instead (which nets them greater ROI; way more tourists in the world compared to remote workers).
It doesn't even matter if by coming in they'd made you more money, you could very well not want to get more money that way, but instead e.g. prefer your peace, cultural coherence, and lack of Starbucks.
I somewhat agree with you, depending on the circumstances (as always, "it depends"). I'm pointing out where we are today. Be the change, sell it to countries if you want to see it implemented.
And by all means talk to your congressman about passing such laws
I for one will be not paying my income tax this year, as I bring income to the country when my landlord/restaurant/cinema pays taxes.
More likely they could not care less, and welcome the money you'll spend in the country.
Those "work" restrictions are for poor immigrants that they want to discourage coming in (the kind you see on Mexican border and such) not for first worlders with mucho dinero.
If you're, say, a US citizen visas aren't required in a lot of cases and visas on arrival often don't distinguish between business and tourism.
Except there are.
You think the UK would want France's unemployed for example?
https://twitter.com/mysonabsalom/status/1072223868717289473
People sidestepping that fee because they're "digital nomads" are not welcome.
Only the dumbest of the dumb operate a social media persona. Specifically because only the dumbest of the dumb give up control of their details, and dump them out in the open to get crawled and surveilled.
It’s the low hanging fruit that will get popped for a LinkedIn (or other social) avatar.
Word of mouth is the only professional channel that matters. It’s the only trustworthy channel that can be relied on in a professional context.
Billionaires don't tend to their business affairs when they're abroad?
It's just that no state would bust them on a "no business visa" issue for that, they want their money and investments.
Tax issues aside, people working remotely for a company based in another country would be a pretty clear source of incoming money into an economy, with very little added in terms of the kind of governmental infrastructure support that would usually needed to entice companies to locate/relocate there.
I'm not saying that's the way the laws are written; just that I could easily see a reason that it would makes sense to allow it.
How do these immigration laws even make sense themselves? What does a country loose when a freelancer travels in, lives there and spends money received from abroad?
1. Sovereign countries are permitted to care about whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. They can enact any laws they wish, protect their border however they wish, and grant anyone the right to work in their country based on whatever reason they may have. When a country is not granted the right to permit (or not permit) someone from entering/working, they lose a part of their sovereignty.
2. How would a country enforce its own tax laws without a formal entry/authorization process?
3. How would a country enforce international tax treaties without a formal entry/authorization process?
4. Working abroad, without any kind of work visa, would make it incredibly easy to evade paying taxes in your own country.
But you're working abroad for a company that's treating you as if you are living in your own country and is, presumably, depositing your paycheck into a bank in that country. The fact that I'm traveling somewhere (on business or pleasure) during a given month basically doesn't affect anything. I travel maybe 100 days a year, in part outside the US. I don't consider myself a digital nomad but the reality is that I'm outside my home country for a decent chunk of the year.
There is a limited range of activities permitted on those, including attending meetings and conferences.
But mostly, US and EU citizens in particular have visa waivers or, at most, a visa on arrival that lets them do normal business travel things. They just can't take a local job.
To the upthread comment, neither myself nor anyone I know has ever been aware of any particular tax implications associated with ordinary business travel.
It can affect your taxes dramatically. Bump that up to 335 days / year outside the US, and you're entitled to the foreign earned income deduction, which last I checked was about $120,000.
That's not evading, though; it's a formal deduction.
The local poor might also not appreciate raised rents that benefit the few owning houses for rent (the AirBnB effect but with longer term "nomad" stays).
Western ex-pats in the developing world have a long history of being and behaving as self-entitled scum, which doesn't win many sympathies.
Besides hipster "nomads" are among the most insufferable of people.
But even more so, and on a more serious note, a lot of those laws are to discourage mass immigration from even poorer places, not the occasional "digital nomad".
On the other hand if your employer has a business presence in-country that can be quite problematic for the employer because it may cause them to run afoul of local visa regulations for employees. US companies also can run into tax problems if they make payments to people resident in other countries as this may look to the IRS like aiding tax evasion. (IANAL but have some experience with this issue from the employer perspective.)
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/7931a5/what_y...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/8tz1hc/i_aske...
To work legally in Thailand you need a work permit which you can only get on an eligible visa. A tourist visa or visa exempt stamp, which digital nomads enter on, is ineligible. And it requires an employer to sponsor it. Even volunteering requires a work permit.
As long as you keep it quiet and don't make enemies you can fly under the radar. But if someone rats you out or the police see an opportunity to make some easy money you will have a very bad time.
What countries have explicit visas to accommodate remote workers (e.g. https://www.wherecani.live/blog/view/digital-nomads--the-sel...)
What countries are popular with digital nomads because they're cheap, tropical, and no one is probably going to ask too many questions if you hang out on your tourist visa for a good stretch.
I imagine from the host countries' point of view, they were the same as ordinary tourists - how they manage to finance their month-long "vacation" is usually not in the interest of the host country, and in this case, they happened to finance it by working remotely during the stay.
Now what happens when they exceed the maximum stay time of a tourist visa due to being stranded is a different question.
Digital nomadism however usually implies that you run a properly set up business in some country and also properly pay taxes for any profit you generate. Sure, the country you're currently living in probably wouldn't reject getting a share of that profit, too, but the currently accepted taxation principle is that you pay your taxes where your business transactions take place. Admittedly, in a connected, digital economy this can cause problems, some of which are exploited by international corporations in order to save taxes, but this is the current legal framework.
As a digital nomad you also typically don't take away job or business opportunities from locals because your business doesn't happen in your country of residence anyway.
Finally, digital nomadism probably - and pretty much like ordinary tourism - is beneficial to countries these nomads flock to as well, simply because you pay for goods and services locally, which not only supports the local economy but in most cases implies some sort of indirect taxation / VAT as well.
I'd say this is too expensive, you can live for much less in these countries.
I think the issue is more about the lack of refunds and sudden need to make drastic life changes. These people had made a major commitment to a company that folded, sure they can get home, but their lives are still in chaos. It's a reasonable cautionary tale about making such a major life-changing commitment based on the services of a startup.
1. Solve the legal issues before you take the first dollar
2. Know your costs to the penny
3. Watch cash flow like a hawk
Like to see someone try this again because I might be a future customer.
So let's add:
4. Don't name yourself exactly like a competitor who does the same thing you do.
Personally I'd pay the $2000/person/mo for a 3-6 month trip for my wife and I. Its cheaper than when we currently go on vacation for just a week.
There is something to be said for the hostel environment without actually having to sleep in a hostel. But mostly it's not my thing when traveling.
Err, it actually seems like they generated a lot of legal issues that they could've easily avoided.
You should read the attached court documents from their fight with Remote Year. It's pretty damning.
Understatement of the year! That's an 8 point list of incredibly shady practises by someone with an utterly broken moral compass.
https://remoteyear.com/
I feel bad for the customers who got stiffed on this startup. I don't really feel bad for the founders who built this company though.
At first I thought that for a fixed sum they were going to supply you X clients every month that would help you live those flashy digital nomad lifestyles they show - laptop on a cruise ship and what not. But that wasn't the case.
When I enquired one of them, they told me I need to deposit close to $10,000 first and they'll simply just arrange my travel plan for the next 3 months or so.
Basically a travel agent business model and not even a good one at that. You know what I did? I searched online for some decent local agents and asked them to give me the best price for a travel plan for 3 months, and spent much less than that $10,000.
A few weeks later, at a cloud conference, I bumped into one of their marketing people. I shared with her my feedback and why I thought it was deceiving. Her response? "Growth hacking" and I didn't even bother to exchange name cards. A few weeks later, they were in the local media for alleged lawsuits against them. And I was really happy.
I really, really hate these dishonest startups and I think they deserve no sympathy. They aren't victims, their customers are.
Edit: typo
If your app doesn’t quite do what it promises, you might get bad press or bad reviews.
If you fake your entire business model, you might get sued or go broke.
If you fake medical equipment, you might go to jail.
Lying that you are providing a real service or being overtly oblivious about logical obvious outcomes of sunny day scenarios... that's way shady.
on edit: removed pointing out typo now that typo fixed.
That being said, this sounds like a case of people who read aspirational Medium.com articles, getting got by the type of people who write those articles.
A business model that offers you the chance to seamlessly jet across different countries, with your lodging and workspace already set up the moment you land? I would think the logistics of such a business would need more local staff, more money and more liability protection than what a few dudes could put together with their savings and personal loans.
But I got a weird vibe reading this article about effectively "digital nomad as a service" sort of thing.
And, as you say, you're either just a travel agent--in which case, how much value are you actually adding? Or you really are handholding and that requires a lot of feet on the street. (And brings me back to this being some sort of digital nomad as a service with guides. Which is OK I guess. But seems strange.)
Just takes more effort. Anyone can do it, as long as you make enough money. And it’s worth it in the long run.
Some individuals do it professionally. It's very hard - and expensive - to prove bad faith and fraudulent intent. It's even more expensive for victims to chase money owed even if fraud is proven.
There should definitely be more attention paid to directors/CEOs with a long trail of insolvencies and legal challenges. Instead of informal consumer reviews or nasty feedback on the BBB, it wouldn't be bad for every country to issue businesses and individuals with their own business equivalent of a credit (credibility) rating - one that's lenient on reasonable failure but comes down hard on anything that looks like a pattern of premeditated scamming and corporate legal trolling.