Pitching your early-stage startup

What's the advantage of doing it in 2 (expensive!) steps if you know the plan already?

I'd wonder about that. But, all the IP is on just a little portable, USB interface, hard drive I own, so I bring a copy with me when the C-corp is formed? Shhh, don't tell anyone!

For two steps, easy: For a solo founder and 100% owner, an LLC is a total sweetheart and a C-corp. with a BoD is a forever continuing total pain in the back side. So, very much do not want a C-corp until need it for equity funding where the founder is no longer 100% owner, and such equity funding is chancy. Equity funding is not easy to get.

I'm not counting on equity funding and, really, have given up on it -- by the time VCs will write me a check, I will long since have not been willing to accept it. My startup is deliberately designed to get to plenty of money for growth with just my labor and my thin checkbook. And, I'd greatly prefer to remain 100% owner of an LLC.

--- 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!

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

> 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.

VCs almost certainly hear this kind of claim multiple times a week and are thoroughly experienced in how frequently this turns out to be true (practically zero) - hence without some kind of demonstration or hook they can anchor themselves to, it's going to go straight in the bin.