Pitching your early-stage startup

My work is not "suspect"; instead, my e-mail messages are nearly all just totally ignored, short, long, technical or not, etc. Clearly, bluntly VCs just don't read unsolicited e-mail.

VCs are so consistent on this point that I have to suspect that mostly their LPs insist on it. The LPs want to think a lot like commercial bankers, want something fairly tangible as an asset. To them, paper plans, running software, analysis, explanations, etc. don't count. The LPs don't want to trust their VCs and, instead, want to trust the market, e.g., via traction. The LPs are convinced that a startup that has traction significant and growing rapidly will soon come crawling to some VCs looking for equity funding for the big, explosive growth, go to market, scale up, build out, put 100 people on it right away, etc. Maybe that idea used to be fairly solid; it's not now.

You are correct: I don't need equity funding. In the past, $100,000 after BoD, legal, accounting, etc. expenses would have helped, but it hasn't been essential. Now a check could be good to have just as an umbrella for a rainy day. Also I've wanted to get some VC feedback, but they won't do that.

But I gave up on VCs. Here I'm pushing back against the OP -- my experience is really strong, write VCs anything you want from the OP, and it will just be ignored if only because VCs refuse to read unsolicited e-mail. For a warm introduction, if you have some of the best, then VCs won't know them. If you are a solo founder and have the traction the VCs want, then likely you don't need the VCs or their check and very much don't want their vesting schedule or to report to a BoD with them controlling it.

Uh, lots of main street businesses, e.g., pizza carryouts, never get equity funding. Well, my startup is much cheaper to start in capex than a pizza carryout, auto repair, auto body repair, dentist's office, lumber yard, McDonald's, grass mowing service, well drilling company, etc. So a Web startup can be one heck of an advantage and good business opportunity.

VCs are just waiting for traction and, really, hearing about the company from just common sources but other than the company. That filter may have worked for them in the past, but it's not in the OP!

But now, it can be so cheap to start a company, e.g., with a sole founder who does all the work, that the traction filter fails: By the time a solo founder gets such traction, they won't want, need, or accept a term sheet, vesting schedule (to get back over four years some of the stock in the company they own 100% of now), and BoD (a big sink for time, money, and effort -- uh, guess who pays the travel expenses for the BoD members?).

My point here is just to push back against the OP: That description tells entrepreneurs lots of stuff that won't work simply because (A) VCs won't read unsolicited e-mail, no matter what it says and (B) want traction, so much that a solo founder with a good project and that much traction won't take the check.

I'm doing the HN audience a big favor: Don't waste your time.

Why not make any difference? (1) They will nearly never pay any attention at all to unsolicited e-mail. (2) If they do read anything, they will essentially always look for something about traction and not seeing that will junk the e-mail.

The reactions about traction are so uniform that I have to conclude that they all have a common source, and that would be VCs agreeing (required to agree) with their LPs, and the LPs coming together to agree on traction, etc.

I don't write such involved prose to VCs with, e.g., lots of details in parentheses. I accept that VCs want to zip through text at about the fourth grade reading level.

I've never mentioned an NDA to a VC, and I doubt that a VC would want to look at my core math or have it reviewed outside -- my guess is that VCs just don't do that. I mention the math because without it there's no way known to accomplish what my work does.

For the $1 T, that's easy enough to justify at the back of the envelope level: Assume 1 billion people connect for a few sessions a week with each session from a few minutes to 30 minutes or so. On average, each session shows them about 5 ads per page for about 20 pages, 100 ads. Assume the Mary Meeker $2 per 1000 ads displayed. Assume a reasonable P/E. Multiply it out for yourself. If assume more, especially better ad targeting, which my data and math permits, then can get several times $1 T. For a back of the envelope estimate, the $1 T is fine. Look, it's simple: My work is an excellent, the first good, solution, so far with the best solutions poor, for a pressing problem for essentially every user of the Internet in the world. We're not talking niche here, or just teenagers, or just dog lovers, cooks, restaurant fans, etc. For the more advanced countries, get maybe as a standard Internet application 1 billion people. Then multiply that out. There's nothing outrageous about the $1 T.

Okay, I'll do the back of the envelope arithmetic for you:

Assume 1 billion users from the more developed countries. On average each connects to the site 3 times a week. Each connection lasts on average 30 minutes where they see an average of 5 standard sized ads per Web page and see 20 Web pages. The revenue is KPCB Mary Meeker's $2 per 1000 ads displayed. So revenue is

     12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 2  /
     1000 = 28,800,000,000

Assume have 40:1 P/E (I'm ignoring tax details here) for a market capitalization of

     40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 2
     / 1000 = 1,152,000,000,000

With the good data from the users and some more math of mine, I should be able to do better ad targeting and get, maybe, $6 per 1000 ads displayed for market capitalization of

     40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 6
     / 1000 = 3,456,000,000,000

There are some options for some virality that should raise the 3 visits a week to 6 for

     40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20 * 6 * 4 * 6
     / 1000 = 6,912,000,000,000

Gee, it's just simple arithmetic.

With some resulting changes in culture, such as we've seen often enough in information technology in the last 10-20 years, the numbers could go several times higher, but I'll omit that.

Okay, I only get 500 million users and only $3.5 T.

Lots of people see the problem; they don't say anything about it because they see it as like death and taxes, something that can't be fixed. They assume the problem can't be solved because they don't have even as much as a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue about how to solve the problem. That's common, standard: E.g., Henry Ford said "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." Well, they didn't believe in a faster horse and had no clue about a car. So, they didn't say anything. It's that way on the Internet now; people don't see a solution so don't say anything. Same for the Internet itself before the Internet.

Uh, some original applied math processing some good data can be some good stuff. The US DoD has known that for a long time; so has the NSF; VCs have yet to learn this lesson.

At one time a VC could have had 20% of my company for $500,000. Not now!

That would have been

     0.20 * 3.5 * 10**12 / 500,000 =
     1,400,000

Lesson to HN readers: VCs are low quality people, losers; don't waste time with them.

I'm no longer looking for VC funding; it's hopeless. I don't really need VC funding. So, my point here is to do a big favor for HN readers and push back against a lot in the OP.

I intend to announce my beta test on HN. Then HN people will be able to see the problem I'm solving.

As for the partner / angel problems, can you elaborate about what worries you? Would VCs have the same issues?