Thanks.

For my

>the world's best solution, much better
than anything else, for a problem that is
pressing for nearly all users of the
Internet,

Well, that's what I intend. I know quite
a lot about the field, area, space,
market I'm in, and, of course, my work,
and so far that statement appears correct.

That statement is supposed to be a simple,
clear, accurate statement about reality as
best I or anyone can see it now.

One way to evaluate that statement is just
to wait. If the statement is correct,
then I should have a company worth several
hundred billion dollars, but then VC
funding would be absurd. Maybe KKR or GS
could arrange an M&A, maybe the largest
ever. Or there could be one heck of an
IPO.

In the meanwhile, we have to make
estimates.

If a VC doubts that statement, then it's
time for them to ask questions. But a
solid answer won't be short so wasn't in
the initial contacts I made.

But an initial contact is not supposed to
have lots of detail but just be a start of
a conversation, mostly to answer the
questions the VCs have. There never was
even a start on such a conversation.

Gee, sometimes big things do happen:
E.g., the guy who first saw a good, cheap,
practical way to make pure aluminum from
the ore had to know he was onto something
really big, and he was, and should have
said so.

Full support would take some explanation
about metals, strength of materials,
corrosion, airplanes, fabrication, etc. so
would not be short.

My statement, "blowhard" or not, touches
on a central point for Sand Hill Road:
The only way they pay the rent, make
money, and make LPs happy is grand slam
home runs, that is, the really exceptional
successes. So, the VCs are forced to be
interested essentially only in the
exceptional. So, it should be appropriate
to discuss the exceptional, "blowhard" or
not.

If the VCs believe that the project would
look better limited to only 1 million
target users, then there should be a way
to arrange that! Is that really the
concern of the VCs who ignore my e-mail
and foil decks?

For why the VCs ignore my "blowhard"
statement, my best guess is that the VCs
are totally convinced, down to the center
of the cells at the center of their bone
marrow, that there is no way, none, zip,
zilch, and zero, for any human alive,
given that Einstein is not, ever early on
to predict a major success. Instead, all
anyone can do is look at early traction
and otherwise just hope for good luck.
So, discussing anything exceptional,
actually successful as desired, is just
counting on luck and, thus, absurd.

My reaction, sometimes included in what I
sent VCs, is that there is a long history
of projects done by the US DoD where from
the beginning, maybe just on the back of
an envelope, the goal was something
exceptional, the project passed good
peer-review, technical evaluation early
on, and the results were as intended, on
time, on budget, or nearly so. Examples:
The B-29, designed essentially just to fly
between Guam and Japan (IIRC, ballpark $6
billion). The Manhattan Project. The B-52
(with updates, still flying). The Boeing
707 -- quickly put the passenger
steamships out of business. The nuclear
submarines. The missile firing nuclear
submarines. The SR-71. GPS. The F-117
stealth fighters that flew over Baghdad in
Gulf War I. I started my career in US DoD
work around DC and saw such things.

My Ph.D. dissertation? I cooked it up on
an airplane flight with a summary on one
page. It worked just as planned -- the
math, the software, the solution to the
real problem.

For my

> So, what ARE the VCs looking for?

Sure, since I tried all the advice and
everything else I could think of, that is
just the crucial remaining question. My
guess at an answer is what explained and
what I'm trying to contribute here.

My remark about the pregnant wives, etc.
was to exaggerate to make what appears to
be an important point: VCs want dependent
entrepreneurs. Or, the relationship
between the founders and the VCs is a
power struggle where the more power one
has, the more money they end up with.

> The second part with caricatures is
indicative of bitterness.

Not "bitterness" -- I'm not pissed. "This
is away beyond pissed." I got a lot of
advice; read lots of VC Web sites on what
they wanted; it was all a huge waste of
time.

> Both attributes are radioactive to
investors

Some of what I sent some VCs had something
like

>the world's best solution, much better
than anything else, for a problem that is
pressing for nearly all users of the
Internet,

but not all. Whether such was included or
not made no difference.

In what I sent, there was no indication of
"bitterness".

> when there is no impressive revenue

And THAT'S my core point: What the VCs
are looking for is traction, better
still, revenue, better still, impressive
revenue with an impressive growth rate,
better still, earnings, then impressive
earnings.

Fine. That's what I'm looking for, too.
And when I get there, I won't need their
equity funding and won't want their equity
funding because I won't want what is in
their term sheet and won't want to report
to a BoD.

Apparently this was the same for the
founder of Plenty of Fish -- IIRC, he
remained sole owner and finally sold out
for about $550 million. No VCs involved.

I've got 100,000 lines of typing for my
software, all running, and apparently
enough for going live and getting to nice
earnings. That and the rest of the work
and planning look, in expected value given
the features of the project, valuable to
me.

Okay, but now we are getting somewhere,
starting to understand: Even for a seed
round, they want traction. Okay, that's
their way of doing business.

I wish, very much wish, I'd just the heck
actually KNOWN that. I would have saved a
LOT of time.

Apparently there are plenty of deals for
VCs to make their way. And occasionally
Lady Luck smiles and they get a big win,
one that makes the LPs happy.

But for me, as a solo founder, by the time
they want to write me a check, I will no
longer want, need, or be willing to accept
it.

That's the lesson I came to and here am
trying to suggest to other entrepreneurs
on HN.

> Unfortunately, the tone of your writing
gives off a different vibe.

Of course, here, it does. But this is not
intended to be a pitch to a VC, and what I
sent them, in several hundred e-mail
messages, had nothing objectionable,
offensive, etc.

Or, the VCs want traction. Everything
else and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup
of coffee.

Exercise: Find such a statement on a seed
and/or series A VC Web site.

Now we are getting clear on reality.