AOS Pitch Deck for Da Vinci Invention Investment Fund I

2. Welcome
Archimedes’ Offspring:
Re-Inventing Inventing
Creating the Next Boom in U.S. Innovation
Using Investment Funds Instead of Startups
Going “From Mind to Market” Directly

3. Problem 1
U.S. Innovation is Stagnant.
• For the past 40 years, U.S. innovation has been dominated by the “VC-funded
Startup Model”
• That Model is broken:
• ”Go big or Go Home!” (no room for incremental, commercially-viable,
smaller-scale innovation)
• Non-Innovator Founders don’t want to stick around and “grow a business”;
“pump and dump” mentality – the exit is more important than the business
itself
• Large companies buy smaller companies using ”acquire-hire” approaches,
thus destroying new innovation in its incipiency
Outcome: Fewer ideas and inventions get funded since most can’t make it through the
”filters” established under the VC-Funded Startup Model

4. Problem 2
The “VC-Funded Startup Model” has
Impoverished Ordinary Americans.
• Due to U.S. (federal and state) securities laws, ordinary Joe’s and Jane’s are, with
few exceptions (e.g., Title III and IV of the JOBS Act), excluded from participating in
the earliest stages of the innovation process;
• Many companies staying private longer (i.e., the problem of the disappearing
“public company” thereby leaving less opportunity for the retail investor);
• Smaller companies disappear as large companies acquire them, thus eliminating
”separate branch” innovation, foreclosing eventual participation by retail investors;
• Recent IPO (e.g., Uber, Lyft, Slack, WeWork) failures have demonstrated that too
much cash is chasing too few sustainable business models and market-unproven
products
Outcome: disappointed (or denied) public shareholders and vast quantities of cash
wasted on mediocre or failing businesses

5. Problem 3
The “VC-Funded Startup Model” has
Hurt the Independent Inventor
• Due to institutional (business) bias and legal constraints, the independent inventor,
without a team, has little or no chance to secure VC, angel or other outside funding
• Large companies dominate the innovation-space due, principally, to financial
constraints on the independent inventor (e.g., intentional-infringement by larger
companies, coupled with large-scale indifference to the plight of the independent
inventor)
• Significant cost that needs to be shouldered exclusively by the independent inventor
before reaching commercial-viability
Outcome: Fewer ideas make it into the marketplace since the independent inventor is
overwhelmed by the obstacles he or she faces

6. Solution
A two-sided market/web-based business where:
• ordinary, retail investors invest directly (not through startups)
in partial ownership of thoroughly-vetted, high-quality
inventions; and
• independent inventors secure the funding and professional
help necessary to successfully commercialize their inventions
SECURE
FUNDING
for worthwhile
Inventions
DEVELOP
INVENTION
with expert help
MARKET
INVENTION
ensure market
penetration;
PROVIDE
SUPERIOR
RETURNS
to inventors and
investors alike

7. Market Validation
TRIPSBOOKED(WORDLWIDE)
TotalAvailable Market
BUDGET & ONLINETRIPS
ServiceableAvailable Market
11+Million
Currently-Inactive
”would-be”
inventors
TRIPSW/AB&B
Market Share

8. Market Validation
11+Million
Currently-Inactive
”would-be”
inventors

9. Market Size - Inventors
1.5 Million
currently-active
independent inventors
11+ Million
currently-inactive
“would-be” inventors”

10. Market Size - Investors
TheRetailInvestmentMarket
“The Retail Investment in the United States is huge”.
Over 50 million households are retail investors of some kind and
over 50% of households have savings accounts or investment plans
like 401(k)s. And while Americans gravitated to savings accounts
and passive investing in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis,
the number of households owing stocks is rising again.
According to the Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances,
54% of households owned stocks in 2017. Unlike institutional
traders, retail traders are more likely to invest in small-cap stocks
because they can have lower price points. They do this to allow
themselves to buy many different securities in order to achieve a
diversified portfolio.

11. Product

12. Business Model - Overview

13. Business Model - Overview

14. Business Model - Overview

15. Business Model - Overview

16. Business Model - Overview

17. Business Model - Purpose
• To make direct investments in partial
ownership interests in intellectual property
• Maximum investment per invention =
$75,000, distributed in three separate
tranches, the actual distribution of which is
dependent on meeting development and
commercialization milestones
• Minimum partial ownership = 10%
• Maximum partial ownership = 49%

18. Business Model - Purpose

19. Business Model - Exits
Possible Exits: Option One
Royalties
Through
Licensing
5% of
Wholesale
Price
Avg. $130 –
$150k /
invention
(annual)

20. Business Model - Exits
Possible Exits: Option Two
Outright
Sale of IP
Avg.SalePriceof
HighlyDesirableIP-
>$300k(median>
$200k)

21. Business Model - Exits
Possible Exits: Option Three
Bridge loans for
exceptional
inventions needing
money to
accomplish final
stages
Avg. Rate- >15%/yr.

22. Business Model - Exits
Possible Exits: Option Four
Buyback of
Partial
Ownership
Interest by
Inventor
Innegotiated
transactions
No resale at
less than 2 X
Investment

23. Market Adoption by Inventors (Proof)
11+Million
Currently-Inactive
”would-be”
inventors

24. Market Adoption by Investors (Proof)
11+Million
Currently-Inactive
”would-be”
inventors

25. Competition

26. Template byPitchDeckCoach.com
Competitive Advantages
Deep inventing
industry experience
(and rolodex’s)
possessed byAOS
personnel andAOS
outside industry
vetting committees
Virtually
unlimited
inventor pool ( > 10
million potential
independent
inventors)
Modest maximum
investment per
invention (little
danger of chasing
bad investments
with new money)
Very modest and
below market
compensation for
managers
responsible for
management of
the business
Virtually
unlimited
investor pool ( > 50
million U.S. retail
investor
households)
Given the size of
the independent
inventor
community, far
greater
diversification of
investment risk is
possible