Here I consider just early stage information technology VC -- later stage and bio-medical can be much different.

Yup, from my experience, the OP has what a lot of VCs do.

One thing for an entrepreneur to do is to read some remarks from a VC or their firm about what their interests are. Then, when their interests well cover my startup, I write them and explain how their interests cover my startup. So, sure, I rarely hear back with anything and otherwise nearly always just as some in the OP.

So, then I get pissed: (A) They said what their interests were; (B) I wrote them showing how their interests covered my startup, but (C) they ignored my contact. Bummer. So I used to, sometimes, wait a week or two and then write them and say that they were so unresponsive that there would be no way we could work together successfully and stated that I withdrew my application.

Since then, in part I wised up. By process of elimination, I began to conclude some basic facts about VCs.

(1) Mostly their stated "interests" don't much matter.

(2) They actually do have some interests and these are nearly universal across VCs and their firms: They are interested in traction, significant and growing rapidly, especially in a large market.

(3) Really, the situation is essentially as in the old Hollywood line, "Don't call us. We'll call you." Or, really, VCs want to learn about the startup from existing buzz, virality, etc. They want to see the product/service, play with it, and try to estimate how successful it will be in the market.

(4) For a first step, for a VC, (1)-(3) is about all that matters.

Actually, (1)-(4) seem to be so astoundingly uniform that they must have some common cause. My guess at the common cause is the larger LPs, e.g., pension funds; they insist on (1)-(3).

For me, I'm a sole, solo founder, toilet cleaner, floor sweeper, ..., computer repair technician, systems administrator, ..., programmer, user interface designer, data base administrator, software designer, product manager, CTO, COO, and CEO with a tiny burn rate. Some venture funding could have made some of the work go faster, but really I haven't needed venture funding and don't really need it now.

But with all the above, there is a surprising situation: My burn rate is so low that I can continue self-funding until my Web site is live. Then, if users like my work, soon I'll have enough revenue from routine efforts running ads that I will have plenty of free cash for organic growth without equity funding. If I get that growth, then I'll have a life style business with, again, plenty of free cash for more organic growth.

About that time, some VCs will learn about my startup and give me a call. They will expect that my company has about five co-founders, each with maxed out personal credit cards, has a business bank account close to $0.00. They will assume that the company and each of the co-founders is just desperate for an equity check on just any terms, say, because each of the co-founders has a pregnant wife. Then the VCs will believe that they can play hard to get, strike a hard bargain, and grab control of my company for next to nothing.

At that time I will check my computer, confirm the name of their VC firm, and let them know the date long before when I sent them a description of my company they ignored. So, I'd inform them that they were too late, that my plane has already left the runway, and no tickets were for sale.

So, now sometimes I write VCs just for fun, so that if my startup does work and they do call me, then I can tell them that I wrote them and they ignored my contact!

To me a biggie point is that apparently the VCs want nothing to do with any business planning, crucial core secret sauce technology, etc. To me, such things are the keys to the big successes the VCs must have to
get the investment returns their
LPs have in mind to invest in
VCs. Further, such planning, special technology are the keys to the
many amazing technology successes
of US national security.

Well, again, apparently VCs want to
wait for traction significant and
growing rapidly.
Maybe that approach will usually
be okay for VCs:
At least apparently the VCs believe
that on the way to a big company,
a startup will nearly always need
some equity capital.

But for a sole, solo founder
with a tiny burn rate and
writing software,
the VCs can miss out:
That is, by the time the
VCs want to invest,
the founder will no longer
want or need the investment.

A big example of such a sole, solo
founder success was the Canadian
romantic match making site Plenty of
Fish.