You are presuming a bunch of insulting stuff about my project, stuff that just is not nearly true.

Naw: Whatever doubts you listed VCs might have about my contacts they can resolve just by some e-mail with questions or a phone call. They don't do that.

VCs insist that a foil deck be really short. So, there's no room for a lot of, or, really, any details.

For production quality code, that's what I've written. There's nothing wrong with my code for revenue of a few million dollars a month. For 1000 times that revenue, will need a lot of attention to system management, monitoring, administration, etc., by then I'll have some software developers and we'll get some experts at Microsoft, etc. to guide us on what to do. Also Microsoft has some relevant products.

I didn't get into computing yesterday: E.g., at IBM for our AI language KnowledgeTool, I did an all-night coding session and at dawn shipped running code with the main ideas. That afternoon our relevant programmer had my code in our production code, weeks ahead of the approach my work replaced (I kept some code on the stack of dynamic descendancy, etc.). Our group shipped that code as an IBM Program Product, IBM's highest quality software product category.

At FedEx, I wrote some code to schedule the fleet. It saved the company from going out of business and was then long used for planning and evaluation of new aircraft, etc. Since that code worked fine in production, it was production code.

The VCs want references? Okay: I have listed the founder, COB, CEO of a famous Fortune 500 company and the President of one of the world's best research universities with one of the world's best computer science departments -- that person was one of my Ph.D. dissertation advisors.

For "Texas sized ideas", that's all the VCs can pursue. They need to back companies that can achieve $1+ billion exits in 10- years.

The estimate of $1T is first-cut, back of the envelope, ballpark but is not just a wild guess and has some solid data and reasoning behind it: E.g., the work is to deliver a "must have" solution for a problem nearly every user of the Internet in the world has nearly everyday, on average at least a few times a week. For the ads, run ones of interest in the more developed countries, use the revenue and market capitalizations of some well known, successful ad-supported companies, and that's the estimate.

We're supposed to knock one over the fences, and not just by luck but by planning, engineering, etc. No VC has ever looked at my estimates, planning, code, or core technology.

In this thread I listed five criteria the VCs want and my project doesn't have. A solid guess is that those are the crucial criteria. Of those, the main criterion is just traction -- the VCs want traction. My guess, explained here, is that the LPs insist on traction or something close.

I'm not some wild eyed dreamer. Instead, I hold an applied math Ph.D. from one of the world's best research universities and was a researcher in AI at IBM's Watson lab, have been at GE, FedEx, IBM, and in a lot of classified work for US national security.

All that is readily available to the VCs, but they don't care.

When my Web site goes live and if it gets traction significant and growing quickly, then via Comscore, Google's ad data, virality, publicity, etc., some VCs will notice and call me.

But by then with my meager burn rate, I won't need, want, or accept their check -- especially I don't want to report to their BoD and, with their check, suddenly go from 100% owner to 0% owner on a several year vesting schedule to get back to maybe 30% ownership while the BoD can fire me at any time for any reason or no reason. Really the VCs and BoD can just take my company, work, secret sauce, etc. and leave me with nothing. So, sure, as for Facebook and/or Google, I should have two classes of stock so that I can keep control. Hmm. It'd be mud wrestling with the VCs, BoD, and lots of lawyers.

I don't want to be a Delaware C Corp. Being a private company (Trump's companies are private), e.g., LLC, is fine with me.

Yes, the VCs want to make money. On average, in terms of ROI, they don't make much money. It's clear enough that a major fraction of VCs live well enough off their 2% without getting much from their 20%. So, they are making money enough now for all they know how to do.