> Second, I would suggest that a cold email is probably the worst way to approach ANY VC.
"Sorry they are having trouble handling e-mail."

- 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)

"But your statement seems to indicate that they want to ignore e-mail, and that does appear to be the case. Ignoring e-mail is bizarre, but they are free to do so."

- Allow me to be clear. They are not ignoring e-mail. They are selectively choosing what they will spend their time on. They have (apparently) chosen not to spend time on your idea. Perhaps in the future you should make your emails more clear, you should be more persuasive, and your idea more compelling.

"For the rest of your post, you miss the big, huge point"

- Oh I get it. I just have quite a bit of contradictory evidence in how they work. Let me paint a picture for you. Perhaps you've heard of Prof. Cheriton of Stanford. He's written a publication or two and invested in a successful startup or two. He invested in a startup called AsterData. So did A16Z. Do you see how that works? They don't necessarily need the deep technical expertise within their team. They can rely on others to do that. Similarly, you might recall me mentioning that cold email is not the best course. If the technical idea you're suggesting is so revolutionary, you should have little to no problem having a well-respected professor get you an introduction.

"I can 100% absolutely, positively guarantee you that one can write a very carefully written e-mail with a project to solve what is clearly a huge problem with overwhelming and obvious evidence that a company solving this problem will be worth $x billion for x high enough to be historic, and outline some of the crucial secret sauce and have A16Z totally ignore the contact."

- Actually you can't. That's hyperbole again. Showing a problem and presenting a solution w/o evidence that you'll be able to execute it in a compelling manner would appear to be more of the problem for you.

"If I get rich, A16Z won't participate."

- I sincerely hope that works out for you.

"If the DoD sees a significant problem and someone comes up with some new, powerful technology for the first or a much better solution, then the DoD will listen and, really, in my experience, for a good case, proceed."

- So if some random PhD just emailed Lemnios, he would pick up the phone and call them? Doubtful..sorry. (and yes...i did my time with DISA as well)

"My experience is that apparently mostly A16Z won't"

- And mine contradicts yours.

"on average the IT VCs are doing poorly"
- Fantastic, we're not discussing "on average"...we're discussing A16Z.

"Still they insist on not even evaluating new technology."
- Incorrect. What about Oculus for example? Or do I need to provide more examples?

"Their feet are locked solidly in concrete with their eyes and ears closed"
- You might be looking in the mirror.

> - Do you want a cookie?
"It's really tough to communicate with someone who works not to understand."

- Boy, do I ever agree.

"It's not about cookies. It's about evaluating projects."

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

"US VC ROI is so bad that being better than 80% of the US VC firms might well still mean just losing money for the LPs."

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

"No, I judge them by making money. ... Then if they refuse to evaluate technology ... ...But do they want to evaluate technology? Apparently not. Heck, they won't even read their e-mail."

- 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.