My take is that overwhelmingly VCs finance projects with 'traction' where the traction can be measured quantitatively. Thus this measure is a surrogate for tra

My take is that overwhelmingly VCs finance projects with 'traction' where the traction can be measured quantitatively. Thus this measure is a surrogate for traditional financing criteria in terms of revenue and earnings. The problem sponsors at DARPA, NIH, and NSF can evaluate technical projects and fund based on such an evaluation. Funding is not easy to get. For US DoD projects intended to result in something practical, the batting average is quite high, much higher than in VC. Yes, a major difference is that DARPA, NIH, and NSF fund projects intended to have a technical accomplishment, maybe with an actual product. VCs want projects that make a big splash in the market, and that is an additional difficulty. One solution for VCs is to fund technical projects aimed at creating new or much better solutions for what is clearly a "big ass" problem in the market so that if such a solution can be found then there is essentially no doubt the solution will be a "must have" in the market and make a big splash. VCs don't like to think this way. As reported by Fred Wilson in his blog, over the past 10 years, on average VC returns have been poor, e.g., less good than the S&P. There is other strong evidence of poor VC financial returns. VCs aren't doing well so that whatever they are doing should not be well respected. A problem with the VCs, again, is that they can't/won't evaluate technical aspects of project proposals, stay with 'traction', and won't consider technical accomplishments, even if done, even if as peer-reviewed original research, in funding decisions. Net, they won't fund technology, even working and ready for market; instead, they fund 'traction'. Did I mention that they want to fund 'traction' -- that's no joke. For funding "people", sure, people with a project with traction if the people are not just totally wacko.