I've done all that. It doesn't make any difference. I explained more, and more carefully here, but that was just for the HN audience.

Why not make any difference? (1) They will nearly never pay any attention at all to unsolicited e-mail. (2) If they do read anything, they will essentially always look for something about traction and not seeing that will junk the e-mail.

The reactions about traction are so uniform that I have to conclude that they all have a common source, and that would be VCs agreeing (required to agree) with their LPs, and the LPs coming together to agree on traction, etc.

I don't write such involved prose to VCs with, e.g., lots of details in parentheses. I accept that VCs want to zip through text at about the fourth grade reading level.

I've never mentioned an NDA to a VC, and I doubt that a VC would want to look at my core math or have it reviewed outside -- my guess is that VCs just don't do that. I mention the math because without it there's no way known to accomplish what my work does.

For the $1 T, that's easy enough to justify at the back of the envelope level: Assume 1 billion people connect for a few sessions a week with each session from a few minutes to 30 minutes or so. On average, each session shows them about 5 ads per page for about 20 pages, 100 ads. Assume the Mary Meeker $2 per 1000 ads displayed. Assume a reasonable P/E. Multiply it out for yourself. If assume more, especially better ad targeting, which my data and math permits, then can get several times $1 T. For a back of the envelope estimate, the $1 T is fine. Look, it's simple: My work is an excellent, the first good, solution, so far with the best solutions poor, for a pressing problem for essentially every user of the Internet in the world. We're not talking niche here, or just teenagers, or just dog lovers, cooks, restaurant fans, etc. For the more advanced countries, get maybe as a standard Internet application 1 billion people. Then multiply that out. There's nothing outrageous about the $1 T.

Okay, I'll do the back of the envelope
arithmetic for you:

Assume 1 billion users from the more
developed countries. On average each
connects to the site 3 times a week. Each
connection lasts on average 30 minutes
where they see an average of 5 standard
sized ads per Web page and see 20 Web pages.
The revenue is KPCB Mary Meeker's $2
per 1000 ads displayed. So revenue is

12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 2 /
1000 = 28,800,000,000

a year. That's nearly all pre-tax
earnings; the opex and capex are in the
round off numbers.

Assume have 40:1 P/E (I'm ignoring tax
details here) for a market capitalization
of

40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 2
/ 1000 = 1,152,000,000,000

So, in round numbers that's $1.2 T.

With the good data from the users and some
more math of mine, I should be able to do
better ad targeting and get, maybe, $6 per
1000 ads displayed for market
capitalization of

40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 6
/ 1000 = 3,456,000,000,000

or $3.5 T.

There are some options for some virality
that should raise the 3 visits a week to 6
for

40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20 * 6 * 4 * 6
/ 1000 = 6,912,000,000,000

or $7 T.

Gee, it's just simple arithmetic.

With some resulting changes in culture,
such as we've seen often enough in
information technology in the last 10-20
years, the numbers could go several times
higher, but I'll omit that.

Okay, I only get 500 million users and
only $3.5 T.

Lots of people see the problem; they don't
say anything about it because they see it
as like death and taxes, something that
can't be fixed. They assume the problem
can't be solved because they don't have
even as much as a weak little hollow hint
of a tiny clue about how to solve the
problem. That's common, standard: E.g.,
Henry Ford said "If I'd asked people what
they wanted, they would have said a faster
horse." Well, they didn't believe in a
faster horse and had no clue about a car.
So, they didn't say anything. It's that
way on the Internet now; people don't see
a solution so don't say anything. Same
for the Internet itself before the
Internet.

Uh, some original applied math processing
some good data can be some good stuff.
The US DoD has known that for a long time;
so has the NSF; VCs have yet to learn this
lesson.

At one time a VC could have had 20% of my
company for $500,000. Not now!

That would have been

0.20 * 3.5 * 10**12 / 500,000 =
1,400,000

ROI. The VCs ignored me. Hundreds of
them.

Lesson to HN readers: VCs are low quality
people, losers; don't waste time with
them.

I'm no longer looking for VC funding; it's hopeless. I don't really need VC funding. So, my point here is to do a big favor for HN readers and push back against a lot in the OP.