4 ms·

First off, I think you generated a lot of goodwill on HN with your previous technical answers such as your generous explanation of FedEx logistics. With that t

• graycat 10y ago
  Thanks. For my >the world's best solution, much better than anything else, for a problem that is pressing for nearly all users of the Internet, Well, that's what I intend. I know quite a lot about the field, area, space, market I'm in, and, of course, my work, and so far that statement appears correct. That statement is supposed to be a simple, clear, accurate statement about reality as best I or anyone can see it now. One way to evaluate that statement is just to wait. If the statement is correct, then I should have a company worth several hundred billion dollars, but then VC funding would be absurd. Maybe KKR or GS could arrange an M&A, maybe the largest ever. Or there could be one heck of an IPO. In the meanwhile, we have to make estimates. If a VC doubts that statement, then it's time for them to ask questions. But a solid answer won't be short so wasn't in the initial contacts I made. But an initial contact is not supposed to have lots of detail but just be a start of a conversation, mostly to answer the questions the VCs have. There never was even a start on such a conversation. Gee, sometimes big things do happen: E.g., the guy who first saw a good, cheap, practical way to make pure aluminum from the ore had to know he was onto something really big, and he was, and should have said so. Full support would take some explanation about metals, strength of materials, corrosion, airplanes, fabrication, etc. so would not be short. My statement, "blowhard" or not, touches on a central point for Sand Hill Road: The only way they pay the rent, make money, and make LPs happy is grand slam home runs, that is, the really exceptional successes. So, the VCs are forced to be interested essentially only in the exceptional. So, it should be appropriate to discuss the exceptional, "blowhard" or not. If the VCs believe that the project would look better limited to only 1 million target users, then there should be a way to arrange that! Is that really the concern of the VCs who ignore my e-mail and foil decks? For why the VCs ignore my "blowhard" statement, my best guess is that the VCs are totally convinced, down to the center of the cells at the center of their bone marrow, that there is no way, none, zip, zilch, and zero, for any human alive, given that Einstein is not, ever early on to predict a major success. Instead, all anyone can do is look at early traction and otherwise just hope for good luck. So, discussing anything exceptional, actually successful as desired, is just counting on luck and, thus, absurd. My reaction, sometimes included in what I sent VCs, is that there is a long history of projects done by the US DoD where from the beginning, maybe just on the back of an envelope, the goal was something exceptional, the project passed good peer-review, technical evaluation early on, and the results were as intended, on time, on budget, or nearly so. Examples: The B-29, designed essentially just to fly between Guam and Japan (IIRC, ballpark $6 billion). The Manhattan Project. The B-52 (with updates, still flying). The Boeing 707 -- quickly put the passenger steamships out of business. The nuclear submarines. The missile firing nuclear submarines. The SR-71. GPS. The F-117 stealth fighters that flew over Baghdad in Gulf War I. I started my career in US DoD work around DC and saw such things. My Ph.D. dissertation? I cooked it up on an airplane flight with a summary on one page. It worked just as planned -- the math, the software, the solution to the real problem. For my > So, what ARE the VCs looking for? Sure, since I tried all the advice and everything else I could think of, that is just the crucial remaining question. My guess at an answer is what explained and what I'm trying to contribute here. My remark about the pregnant wives, etc. was to exaggerate to make what appears to be an important point: VCs want dependent entrepreneurs. Or, the relationship between the founders and the VCs is a power struggle where the more power one has, the more money they end up with. > The second part with caricatures is indicative of bitterness. Not "bitterness" -- I'm not pissed. "This is away beyond pissed." I got a lot of advice; read lots of VC Web sites on what they wanted; it was all a huge waste of time. > Both attributes are radioactive to investors Some of what I sent some VCs had something like >the world's best solution, much better than anything else, for a problem that is pressing for nearly all users of the Internet, but not all. Whether such was included or not made no difference. In what I sent, there was no indication of "bitterness". > when there is no impressive revenue And THAT'S my core point: What the VCs are looking for is traction, better still, revenue, better still, impressive revenue with an impressive growth rate, better still, earnings, then impressive earnings. Fine. That's what I'm looking for, too. And when I get there, I won't need their equity funding and won't want their equity funding because I won't want what is in their term sheet and won't want to report to a BoD. Apparently this was the same for the founder of Plenty of Fish -- IIRC, he remained sole owner and finally sold out for about $550 million. No VCs involved. I've got 100,000 lines of typing for my software, all running, and apparently enough for going live and getting to nice earnings. That and the rest of the work and planning look, in expected value given the features of the project, valuable to me. Okay, but now we are getting somewhere, starting to understand: Even for a seed round, they want traction. Okay, that's their way of doing business. I wish, very much wish, I'd just the heck actually KNOWN that. I would have saved a LOT of time. Apparently there are plenty of deals for VCs to make their way. And occasionally Lady Luck smiles and they get a big win, one that makes the LPs happy. But for me, as a solo founder, by the time they want to write me a check, I will no longer want, need, or be willing to accept it. That's the lesson I came to and here am trying to suggest to other entrepreneurs on HN. > Unfortunately, the tone of your writing gives off a different vibe. Of course, here, it does. But this is not intended to be a pitch to a VC, and what I sent them, in several hundred e-mail messages, had nothing objectionable, offensive, etc. Or, the VCs want traction. Everything else and a dime won't cover a 10 cent cup of coffee. Exercise: Find such a statement on a seed and/or series A VC Web site. Now we are getting clear on reality.