I have a medical technology that has a huge target market that is not being met up to this point. I have no immediate (exact similar) competitors and those who are have a disadvantage to my technology. My technology is also disruptive.
Without going too much into detail on here, I am willing to offer a “no cap” collateral towards investment funds, that can generate over $36 million in a 5 year period. This towards a total investment of $5 million in stages over a 2 year period against milestones, – starting with $500,000 seed and an additional $2 mil within the first year. The $36m is a projection with slow growth estimate to avoid exaggerated amounts. In the final year I have included only half of maximum capacity, showing how much revenue potential the collateral has. There is no revenue in the first (est) 15 months. In fact, the collateral itself can cover the second years funding; the investor is therefore investing only half of the required funds towards a huge return.
Would investors be interested in this format or am I off the chart?

I have a medical technology that has a huge target market that is not being met up to this point. I have no immediate (exact similar) competitors and those who are have a disadvantage to my technology. My technology is also disruptive.
Without going too much into detail on here, I am willing to offer a “no cap” collateral towards investment funds, that can generate over $36 million in a 5 year period. This towards a total investment of $5 million in stages over a 2 year period against milestones, – starting with $500,000 seed and an additional $2 mil within the first year. The $36m is a projection with slow growth estimate to avoid exaggerated amounts. In the final year I have included only half of maximum capacity, showing how much revenue potential the collateral has. There is no revenue in the first (est) 15 months. In fact, the collateral itself can cover the second years funding; the investor is therefore investing only half of the required funds towards a huge return.
Would investors be interested in this format or am I off the chart?

I have a medical technology that has a huge target market that is not being met up to this point. I have no immediate (exact similar) competitors and those who are have a disadvantage to my technology. My technology is also disruptive.
Without going too much into detail on here, I am willing to offer a “no cap” collateral towards investment funds, that can generate over $36 million in a 5 year period. This towards a total investment of $5 million in stages over a 2 year period against milestones, – starting with $500,000 seed and an additional $2 mil within the first year. The $36m is a projection with slow growth estimate to avoid exaggerated amounts. In the final year I have included only half of maximum capacity, showing how much revenue potential the collateral has. There is no revenue in the first (est) 15 months. In fact, the collateral itself can cover the second years funding; the investor is therefore investing only half of the required funds towards a huge return.
Would investors be interested in this format or am I off the chart?

How is this 'risk capital' or 'start-up capital'? With existing revenue of $3 million, why would a company need VC funding when most investment funds seems to be on the lower end? These VC's had too stringent requirements. If entrepreneurs can meet these requirements, they have a better deal approaching their bank for loans without any need to give stock or shares to a VC. If VC's are that worried that an entrepreneur is incapable of bringing a new start-up to success, would it not be better they get involved in the management of the company and aid to bring it to success?

I think this can be a damaging trend for VC's to follow who look for great business potentials. What will eventually happen is that rumors will spread among entrepreneurs that VC's are too demanding and that it's pointless to seek VC capital. VC's will have less and less good projects presented to them for investment and will eventually lose a chance to make profits for themselves.

How is this 'risk capital' or 'start-up capital'? With existing revenue of $3 million, why would a company need VC funding when most investment funds seems to be on the lower end? These VC's had too stringent requirements. If entrepreneurs can meet these requirements, they have a better deal approaching their bank for loans without any need to give stock or shares to a VC. If VC's are that worried that an entrepreneur is incapable of bringing a new start-up to success, would it not be better they get involved in the management of the company and aid to bring it to success?

I think this can be a damaging trend for VC's to follow who look for great business potentials. What will eventually happen is that rumors will spread among entrepreneurs that VC's are too demanding and that it's pointless to seek VC capital. VC's will have less and less good projects presented to them for investment and will eventually lose a chance to make profits for themselves.