Anyway, I’m not really sure the point of your criticism of VCs. That you eventually found investors is good, but your grouse is that you don’t have prominent venture capitalists among your investors?
Venture Capital, by definition, has a different appetite for risk than private equity for instance, so it is understandable why your idea may not have been interesting to them.
Why? Because it is inherent in their name: venture, noun; ‘a risky or daring journey or undertaking’. Building an energy efficient home is an innovative undertaking, but I’m sure many will agree it hardly qualifies as risky the way social-oriented startups like GitHub, Slack, Pinterest were risky before they matured into going concerns. Social businesses live and die by the power of network effects, so those startups had no choice but to seek out venture funding to fuel their hockey-stick growth and in exchange they promised their VCs high returns.
Home building OTOH may not benefit from seeking out venture funding compared to traditional funding since the risks of construction are pretty well understood. Also, there are no network effects to ride on to massive growth, as is abundantly clear from the WeWork story.
That’s a summary of the purpose of VC. In practice, the fact that VCs herd towards funding the next big cat video sharing app that would surpass TikTok is a different story. More of a failure of imagination of the VC class as a group.