>This isn't the way to find the next Steve Jobs indeed, and that's not what I'm searching for. [...] This isn't the way to kickstart a $1bn company I get your

>This isn't the way to find the next Steve Jobs indeed, and that's not what I'm searching for. [...] This isn't the way to kickstart a $1bn company I get your clarification now. I think some including me were thrown off by your "Premise 1: Investors/Incubators over-estimate their ability to pick good ideas/startups." In your business opportunities of "consultants who notice a workflow inefficiency but would rather pay 80% to someone else to do the programming work for a new product", that landscape doesn't have "overestimated abilities" of investors. Instead, they don't even look there at all. They need to put more than $2000 to work on a single deal to make their due diligence time worthwhile. For their fund sizes, they're scouting the arena of potential huge $1b businesses. No non-techie founders of that type of business that had any street smarts at all would ever give up 80% equity of a company in exchange for an MVP. By design of your 80% cut, it would only attract desperate losers. That was the "adverse selection" I was talking about. However, now that I've seen your other replies, your deal feels more like paying a "finder's fee" to the consultant for his/her business idea rather than attracting a cofounder that will share the workload of doing multiple years of hard work with you. Nothing wrong with this but I misunderstood earlier what you were trying to accomplish. In this case, maybe tptacek is right and your 80% is too low and you're underpaying yourself.