> - I would suggest they're not having trouble handling email...their filtering is working just fine. You would appear to have trouble handling rejection (at least I would infer that)

No, I'm just reporting some strong evidence that they
just don't read their e-mail. Or, to be more clear,
apparently essentially all information technology (IT) VCs will just ignore an e-mail
message saying (generic version; real version
with specifics):

(1) Here is the problem we are attacking.
So far it is easy to see that there is no
good solution. Fairly clearly a good solution
will be of high interest to over 80% of all the
Internet users, work station down to smart phone, in the world.

(2) The main reason the problem has remained
unsolved is that knowing how to solve the problem
is a challenge. The team has a new, unique,
powerful, valuable, rock solid solution that
has a high technological barrier to entry.

(3) Monetization? With a few billion unique
users a month, for a first cut, just run ads.
For more, there is an aspect of the project
that permits some especially effective ad
targeting with especially good protection of
user privacy.

(4) The crucial core software implementing the
technology is production quality and scalable.
The rest is just an especially simple
front-end Web site, nearly done.

(5) Team qualifications in business,
research, and software are high.

Then with 1-5, they will just ignore the contact.
No response. No questions. Nothing. They just
ignore it. From the claims there, we're talking
$100+ billion exit value; they just ignore it.
No response; just toss it into the bit bucket.

Look, we're talking a billion or more unique
visitors a month and an exit value north
of $100 billion, and they have no response at all.
Strong evidence that they just ignore their
e-mail. Leave a $20 on a sidewalk; a
guy walks by; the $20 is still there;
conclusion, he didn't see the $20. Or,
the VC firm just didn't see the e-mail.

One reason is, US IT VCs just have never seen any such
thing, that is, an IT start up where what is crucial
is the 'secret sauce' technology to solve the
big problem. Instead, they pursue only other
ways of making money and where the technology
is essentially just routine software. US
IT VCs and A16Z just will not give any value to
(that is, won't spend time to investigate)
results of research in IT -- the DoD is
awash in valuable results of such research;
biotech VC will take research seriously; but
US IT VCs haven't seen
any big business success from such research, don't
really understand research or how to evaluate it,
want to pursue other ways of making money,
and want just to ignore anything based on research.
They just want to f'get about research.
That is the obvious explanation.

Since the US IT VCs are just determined to ignore
research, the flip side of that is an advantage
for any project with some good research.

Net, they don't read their e-mail and won't
evaluate technology.

> - I would suggest they're not having trouble handling email...their filtering is working just fine. You would appear to have trouble handling rejection (at least I would infer that)

No, the situation is just as I said: The evidence is
overwhelmingly strong that they just refuse to
read e-mail from someone they don't know. That's their
choice.

> They don't necessarily need the deep technical expertise within their team.

Yes they do or they are at risk of missing out
on possibly some of the best projects. As I made
clear, for the past 10-20 years, information
technology (IT) VCs have not seen big successes based
on anything at the level of publishable technical
research. So, they just f'get about thinking about
or evaluating such work. Again, the track record
and promise of such research is from DoD, NSF, NIH,
etc., not IT entrepreneurs over the past 10-20 years.

Research based projects will likely remain
only a tiny fraction of what US IT VCs get in their
inbox, but such projects are a good bet for a few
$100+ exits over the next decade. Considering
how few such successes there are,
ignoring
such projects, especially with the example of
DoD, is foolish.

For Cheriton,
they were not reading just some e-mail or investing
in the technology; instead, they already knew
the professor and were investing in him.
But professors are not nearly the only people
who can do research.

> - Allow me to be clear. They are not ignoring e-mail.

No, flatly they are ignoring e-mail. Write them
something short, clear, and astounding, and they
just ignore it, won't read it, won't respond at all.
Maybe they want an introduction. Maybe they want
only other means of selecting entrepreneurs. Maybe
they just are having fun pissing off entrepreneurs.
Maybe they are busy enough with what they are doing
now. Maybe whatever, but they ignore e-mail. Sorry 'bout
that, but they do.

> - You seem to keep missing the obvious point of perhaps they evaluated the technology you seem to be so bunched up about...and didn't care for it.

Nonsense. For the technology in question, there is likely
and apparently only one person in the world who knows it.
Send A16Z a high level view, and they ignore the
communications. They make no attempt to get the
details of the technology and evaluate it. It's
simple: They just will not get involved in evaluating
new technology.

> - Perhaps they evaluated and weren't impressed. Or is that impossible?

It is impossible. They can't have even as much
as a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue about
anything about the crucial internals of the technology.
They received only a business view of the
power and value of the technology. For how it works,
which is crucial for evaluating it, they don't know.
To know they would have to do some due diligence. There
is little hope that they could competently direct the
due diligence.

> - Fantastic. Again we're not talking about the broader VC industry.

Right. We're talking about A16Z. My point was in
response to your figure of 80%: Likely a VC firm
with ROI just better than 80% of the VC industry is
still losing money for its LPs. In this case,
even if A16Z has better ROI than 80% of VC firms,
they might still be losing money. However, since they just
raised $1.5 billion, I suspect that it appears that
they are making money; since a lot of the old
investments likely have yet to exit, it might be tough
to know their ROI so far, but no doubt they had
to show something good about ROI to raise $1.5
billion.

> Incorrect. What about Oculus for example?

I don't know that case well, but my superficial
understanding is that the product was in production
and selling and all a venture firm had to do
was to evaluate the sales figures and the
product itself without much concern for any
crucial internals of the technology. Like I said,
the US DoD, CIA, etc. funded the SR-71 when
nearly it was was engineering on paper, and VCs
would want to wait until the plane was flying
successfully and then maybe pay for some of the
jet fuel. US IT VCs just will not evaluate technical
work just on paper; they won't do it. Maybe
this situation is enforced by the LPs, but
that is the situation. The story used to be
that VCs could fund a project described on the
back of a napkin, but now they just will not
fund original technical work just on paper or
even when the corresponding software is production
quality and running. If some such project
gets funded, then the reason was not just the
technology and software but the reputation of the
founder or some such. NSF, NIH, DARPA,
Ph.D. committees, and peer-reviewed journals
of original research will evaluate new work
just on paper, but US IT VCs just will not.
And, e-mail with any such connection with
such research goes into the bit bucket,
from their "filter" if they look at the
e-mail at all.

We are in agreement: They just do not want to
look at e-mail.

So be it.

The project in question, if it starts to work at all,
will quickly generate revenue
of $10,000, $40,000, ..., $800,000
a month starting with just a
$1500 server and, for $1 million a month,
using just a few such servers in
a spare bedroom with some A/C in a window,
a consumer Internet connection (that permits
commercial usage), and a 200 A circuit breaker.

So, why jerk chains of VCs? For the project in
question, it has long been the case that
there has been no very good reason,
although maybe just as 'reserve fuel'
in case of some disaster. The main reason
for my posts here are just to let the HN
community know that A16Z and essentially
all of US IT VC just will not take seriously
descriptions of technical work in e-mail
without an introduction, knowing the
person, etc. For anyone with a background
in doing projects inside a business, for
US national security, or for academic
research, this situation is just bizarre
and has cost the founders of the project
a lot of time although only some time ago.
But the project moved forward on its own
funding, and revenue with good free cash
flow, plenty enough to grow capacity
if usage does grow, seems quite near.
So, for this project, to heck with VCs.
But the time wasted in the past on
VCs still hurts. And the HN audience
should know some of the truth.