4 ms·

I have no idea what you are building and what problem you are solving. Sorry, you need to wind down your monologue and be more concise

graycat 9y ago
What I wrote above is for the HN audience and is not what I ever sent to a VC. But for concise: --- Executive Summary, Elevator Pitch --- There are about 3 billion Internet users in the world. There is a problem (I can explain very quickly but won't explain in public yet but have explained to lots of VCs) that is pressing for essentially all those users but so far solved at best poorly. I have developed an excellent, and the first good, solution, now in software about ready to go live. Ballpark, good users will visit my Web site solution a few times a week, and from simple arithmetic the company should relatively soon be worth ballpark $1 T. Short enough? Ballpark, there's not a single VC in the US who will touch that with a pole five miles long. "Innovative, leading edge, disruptive, high value, low risk, low cost to start, good barriers to entry" -- has all those but no VC in the country will take even 10 seconds to look at it. Why not? Educated guesses: (1) Most important, the VCs want traction, significant and growing rapidly. (2) The VCs hate the idea of a solo founder. (3) The key to such astounding value is some crucial, core, original applied math, and VCs have never seen a successful startup based on math, know that they don't know the math, and really hate that some math might be relevant to an information technology startup. Instead, the VCs' idea of technology is some routine C++ software or some such. (4) No one has yet built a company worth $1 T, so the VCs just reject that possibility. (5) The VCs have total contempt for anything they receive via unsolicited e-mail. For a good startup, the VCs want to hear about the company from some solid source other than the company. The VCs are totally convinced that that source of information will be plenty soon enough for their investing. (6) The VCs believe, solidly, that if my startup starts to be successful, then I will come crawling back to them, desperate for equity funding for "the big build out," the "big staff up," the "big go to market push," "the explosively rapid growth," for the necessary high rate of growth to capture the market before others do (the VCs assume that anything one startup could do other startups could easily duplicate or equal, i.e., the VCs have never yet seen anything like crucial, core, proprietary technology genuinely ahead and difficult to duplicate or equal; the VCs believe that what is crucial is just the market and any relevant technology will be routine -- false!) for their help with marketing, staffing, business acumen, more funding rounds, exit strategy, etc. Nope. The idea that my work can get me to $10,000 a month in revenue, maybe $200,000+ a month, then that revenue could let me scale to $2 million a month, then that revenue should let me scale to $20 million a month, then that revenue should let me get a lot of office space and hire a lot of people and grow to $100 million a month, ..., to a company worth $1 T is just to be laughed at, ignored, scorned, junked, etc. VCs are necessarily chasing things that are really exceptional, but when they hear about such a thing they reject it without even a glance because it is not what they are used to! Maybe the VCs are jealous, already making money enough, want desperate, subordinate entrepreneurs, etc. But they don't want me, and my startup has such low burn rate and my checkbook is still thick enough that I don't need the VCs and should be able to get to revenue of $10,000 a month at which time "no VC need call". My Point: I wasted a LOT of time pitching to VCs, and I want to warn HN readers that VCs can be really tough to communicate with. E.g., some VCs claim that they "seek out" some really good stuff, but when send them e-mail outlining just such stuff they just ignore the e-mail. Warning: It's a big secret in information technology VC that they take great pride in ignoring unsolicited e-mail. So, don't waste time writing them. If you really want them, then get some traction and publicity and let them call you. Of course, if you are a solo founder with tiny opex, you may not want to talk with them!
- CalRobert 9y ago
  "Short enough?" Not even close. WTF do you do??? Slack: makes team chat and IM easy Tesla: Makes electric cars that don't suck Dropbox: Makes it easy to share and sync files with colleagues You: I have no damn idea. It's crucial to remember that any VC (really, any person) you're talking to is listening to BS 90% of the time. You MUST convince them QUICKLY that you're not bullshitting them. Your intro, which I worry you think is engaging, sounds like scammy BS ("I can solve this problem and make a trillion dollars but I won't tell you what the problem is unless you read my rambling wall of text below!!"). Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell
- perl4ever 9y ago
  If the invention involves "original applied math", yet is useful to ordinary people then I'm not clear on why there is harm is saying what it is, briefly. If I invent a flying car that runs on a couple of AA batteries, then saying so is not going to give away my secrets and allow competitors to beat me. It seems inconsistent to be complaining that VCs think, falsely, that your solution can be duplicated easily, while treating it as so secret you can't give a summary of what (not how) you have done.
  - graycat 9y ago
    > If I invent a flying car that runs on a couple of AA batteries, then saying so is not going to give away my secrets and allow competitors to beat me. Your point is well taken, and I thought of that. But my concern is that if I explain the market opportunity, then some big companies or big VCs will rush to do something that looks like that. If my project is a flying car on two AA batteries, then they will come out with a flying car with a small engine that charges a 200 pound battery pack and can fly maybe two miles, publicize the heck out of it, and make my effort just ignored, no matter how much better it is. Besides, as I've explained here, I've explained to lots of VCs the problem I'm solving. They don't care. They won't pay attention to any explanations. That's why here I focus on traction -- VCs won't touch my work with a pole 5 miles long, and about the only thing I don't have now is traction. So, we know the truth: What they really care about, about all they care about, is traction. Maybe in the past that was good for their businesses, but now it's so cheap to start a company that by the time there is that old traction, a solo founder (they hate solo founders) with meager opex won't want, need, or accept a term sheet and BoD. I admit that there are not yet very many such startups, but the door is now wide open to a golden road of just such successes. E.g., can get a 64 bit, x86 processor with 8 cores and a 4.0 GHz clock for less than $150. Can put it on a $100 motherboard in a $50 case. Can get main memory for about $9 a GB. Can get nearly all the Microsoft server side software for free in their BizSpark program. But my point here is to do a big favor for HN readers, to push back against the OP, to explain that VCs just don't read their e-mail messages, want warm introductions but don't know the best people, etc. I've given up on VCs, e.g., have insulted them here. So, I'm pushing back against the OP as a favor to the HN audience. Guys, save your time. Write VCs anything you want as in the OP, and the VCs will just ignore it, usually not even open the e-mail. I've just done you a big favor.

graycat 9y ago

What I wrote above is for the HN audience and is not what I ever sent to a VC. But for concise: --- Executive Summary, Elevator Pitch --- There are about 3 billion Internet users in the world. There is a problem (I can explain very quickly but won't explain in public yet but have explained to lots of VCs) that is pressing for essentially all those users but so far solved at best poorly. I have developed an excellent, and the first good, solution, now in software about ready to go live. Ballpark, good users will visit my Web site solution a few times a week, and from simple arithmetic the company should relatively soon be worth ballpark $1 T. Short enough? Ballpark, there's not a single VC in the US who will touch that with a pole five miles long. "Innovative, leading edge, disruptive, high value, low risk, low cost to start, good barriers to entry" -- has all those but no VC in the country will take even 10 seconds to look at it. Why not? Educated guesses: (1) Most important, the VCs want traction, significant and growing rapidly. (2) The VCs hate the idea of a solo founder. (3) The key to such astounding value is some crucial, core, original applied math, and VCs have never seen a successful startup based on math, know that they don't know the math, and really hate that some math might be relevant to an information technology startup. Instead, the VCs' idea of technology is some routine C++ software or some such. (4) No one has yet built a company worth $1 T, so the VCs just reject that possibility. (5) The VCs have total contempt for anything they receive via unsolicited e-mail. For a good startup, the VCs want to hear about the company from some solid source other than the company. The VCs are totally convinced that that source of information will be plenty soon enough for their investing. (6) The VCs believe, solidly, that if my startup starts to be successful, then I will come crawling back to them, desperate for equity funding for "the big build out," the "big staff up," the "big go to market push," "the explosively rapid growth," for the necessary high rate of growth to capture the market before others do (the VCs assume that anything one startup could do other startups could easily duplicate or equal, i.e., the VCs have never yet seen anything like crucial, core, proprietary technology genuinely ahead and difficult to duplicate or equal; the VCs believe that what is crucial is just the market and any relevant technology will be routine -- false!) for their help with marketing, staffing, business acumen, more funding rounds, exit strategy, etc. Nope. The idea that my work can get me to $10,000 a month in revenue, maybe $200,000+ a month, then that revenue could let me scale to $2 million a month, then that revenue should let me scale to $20 million a month, then that revenue should let me get a lot of office space and hire a lot of people and grow to $100 million a month, ..., to a company worth $1 T is just to be laughed at, ignored, scorned, junked, etc. VCs are necessarily chasing things that are really exceptional, but when they hear about such a thing they reject it without even a glance because it is not what they are used to! Maybe the VCs are jealous, already making money enough, want desperate, subordinate entrepreneurs, etc. But they don't want me, and my startup has such low burn rate and my checkbook is still thick enough that I don't need the VCs and should be able to get to revenue of $10,000 a month at which time "no VC need call". My Point: I wasted a LOT of time pitching to VCs, and I want to warn HN readers that VCs can be really tough to communicate with. E.g., some VCs claim that they "seek out" some really good stuff, but when send them e-mail outlining just such stuff they just ignore the e-mail. Warning: It's a big secret in information technology VC that they take great pride in ignoring unsolicited e-mail. So, don't waste time writing them. If you really want them, then get some traction and publicity and let them call you. Of course, if you are a solo founder with tiny opex, you may not want to talk with them!

CalRobert 9y ago
"Short enough?" Not even close. WTF do you do??? Slack: makes team chat and IM easy Tesla: Makes electric cars that don't suck Dropbox: Makes it easy to share and sync files with colleagues You: I have no damn idea. It's crucial to remember that any VC (really, any person) you're talking to is listening to BS 90% of the time. You MUST convince them QUICKLY that you're not bullshitting them. Your intro, which I worry you think is engaging, sounds like scammy BS ("I can solve this problem and make a trillion dollars but I won't tell you what the problem is unless you read my rambling wall of text below!!"). Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell
perl4ever 9y ago
If the invention involves "original applied math", yet is useful to ordinary people then I'm not clear on why there is harm is saying what it is, briefly. If I invent a flying car that runs on a couple of AA batteries, then saying so is not going to give away my secrets and allow competitors to beat me. It seems inconsistent to be complaining that VCs think, falsely, that your solution can be duplicated easily, while treating it as so secret you can't give a summary of what (not how) you have done.
- graycat 9y ago
  > If I invent a flying car that runs on a couple of AA batteries, then saying so is not going to give away my secrets and allow competitors to beat me. Your point is well taken, and I thought of that. But my concern is that if I explain the market opportunity, then some big companies or big VCs will rush to do something that looks like that. If my project is a flying car on two AA batteries, then they will come out with a flying car with a small engine that charges a 200 pound battery pack and can fly maybe two miles, publicize the heck out of it, and make my effort just ignored, no matter how much better it is. Besides, as I've explained here, I've explained to lots of VCs the problem I'm solving. They don't care. They won't pay attention to any explanations. That's why here I focus on traction -- VCs won't touch my work with a pole 5 miles long, and about the only thing I don't have now is traction. So, we know the truth: What they really care about, about all they care about, is traction. Maybe in the past that was good for their businesses, but now it's so cheap to start a company that by the time there is that old traction, a solo founder (they hate solo founders) with meager opex won't want, need, or accept a term sheet and BoD. I admit that there are not yet very many such startups, but the door is now wide open to a golden road of just such successes. E.g., can get a 64 bit, x86 processor with 8 cores and a 4.0 GHz clock for less than $150. Can put it on a $100 motherboard in a $50 case. Can get main memory for about $9 a GB. Can get nearly all the Microsoft server side software for free in their BizSpark program. But my point here is to do a big favor for HN readers, to push back against the OP, to explain that VCs just don't read their e-mail messages, want warm introductions but don't know the best people, etc. I've given up on VCs, e.g., have insulted them here. So, I'm pushing back against the OP as a favor to the HN audience. Guys, save your time. Write VCs anything you want as in the OP, and the VCs will just ignore it, usually not even open the e-mail. I've just done you a big favor.