OK, I'll put something concrete on the table to get away from the hypothetical.

Here's one of my MVP's (yes folks, I am working on more than one idea at a time):

http://www.tommyteaches.com/

Go on, check it out and come back.

This is actually a finished product. There's nothing new to build at this stage except for additional installments of Tommy Teaches apps (additional subjects) and a few that will require slightly different technology. So, it is an MVP only in the sense that it is the first "hook in the water" to be able to start gathering a little bit of an audience and start testing a hypothesis.

Where is it now? It just launched, and, as a paid app, it enjoyed all of three days in the "new in education" list and notched down from there. I probably should have released it as a free app and then convert to paid. It has a built-in recommendation system which --I would hope-- would then serve to gather a larger audience.

The real power is in having Tommy teach additional topics and have more hooks in the water. Then it can leverage into other areas, such as a more elaborate online portal with advertising, affiliate stuff and online games to keep them coming. You have to start somewhere.

And yes, the strategy with new titles will be to release them as free apps and then migrate into paid at certain point.

This app required a lot of heavy lifting in order to creatively utilize a genetic algorithm to optimize teaching. All-in-all, between various experiments and concepts you are looking at about a year's worth of work.

Why take it that far? Because that was part of the initial hypothesis. It came out of helping my own kids with school-work. The realization was that the vast majority of apps out there use mindless (and useless) repetition to "teach". A real human teacher actually observes the student and adjusts teaching style, sequence and content in order to focus on what the kid is having trouble with and optimize/maximize learning. That's what Tommy Teaches attempts to do.

OK, long explanation. Let's get back to the OP's proposal and the potential relevance to this project.

With Tommy's engine (rev 1) and his first app released I am engaged in the following:

- Planning follow-on titles (as seen on the website)
- Marketing, building an audience
- Monitoring usage (analytics) to try to determine if and how to mutate
Tommy for better results
- Looking for additional revenue-generating opportunities for Tommy
Amazon affiliate links on the site for kid's books and toys being one example.

In other words, mostly business development.

So, what might inspire me to give up a percentage of my business to someone else? Yes, there's still plenty of development work to do. Nothing is ever finished. As projects go, this is a fairly polished actual product, not a cripple-ware MVP.

In my eyes outside funding would be of use to accelerate the production of additional titles. That, I think, is important. It would also be interesting to consider accelerating the release of these titles for Android and perhaps even consider dipping toes in the Windows 8 Phone landscape.

The other very important element here is the use of outside funding AND know-how/connections to accelerate marketing and audience-building efforts. This could be, by far, the most valuable part of a deal. This is particularly true when the technology is already built and it is basically a product that needs to be sold.

Herein lies the issue, at least for me. The OP hasn't really provided enough information to evaluate the quality of his money (no offense intended). For most projects dumb money is useless. It can even be dangerous. Smart money comes with contacts, methods, audience, perspective, experience, outlook and a whole host of other items that go into making it "smart".

Then there's the idea that $8,000 isn't a lot of money at all. If you are working in tech you should be able to put together $8,000, even if it takes you a year to do so. Equity is sacred and it should not be given-up without great justification. Again, on the premise that a tech worker earns a good living, giving-up 50% of your company for $8,000 (meaning, just money and a nebulous offer to market) simply doesn't make a ton of sense.

I've hired and fired many sales and marketing people in prior business ventures. If there's one thing I can say conclusively is that there really isn't a perfect correlation between the ability of a person selling product A translating into selling product B. I've hired people who were fantastic at selling product A, had a huge client list and came with recommendations. They couldn't sell my product to save their lives. There's something, for lack of a better term, "organic" about the relationship or the fit between the marketeer/sales-person and the product.

This is to say that just because someone says that they are going to market your product it does not mean --not for a second-- that they are actually going to be able to deliver results.

Just to set things straight: I think the OP is doing this community a huge service by opening-up this paradigm for discussion. And, while the proposed structure isn't something I would be inclined to consider, I am sure there are those for whom it could be fantastic and even potentially life-changing.

I am more than willing to consider a partner for Tommy Teaches. However, this partner needs to bring to the table a really convincing value proposition that goes beyond money. By all means, if you are that person and are interested drop me an email (see HN profile).