Mike Ajouz Meeting Prep Doc

Date: December 26, 2025

Purpose: Comprehensive preparation for funding conversation with Mike Ajouz

Reference Document: Christofuture Foundation Vision V2

Critical Context

Mike already said the key thing. About a week ago, in a long meeting, Mike told you: "We need to build a community of Garys."

This proposal is your response to what HE asked for. You're not pitching cold. You're delivering on a vision he articulated. Frame accordingly.

Meeting Approach:

Email Mike the hype video first
He watches, then reads the V2 document
Email says: "Let me know when you can meet up. Here are some times, but I'm flexible to your schedule."

Section 1: Meeting Mindset

The Frame: This is a conversation, not a pitch. You're discovering whether your vision serves what Mike actually wants. Listen 70%, talk 30%.

Success Definition:

Mike says yes AND you learn something crucial about the model
OR Mike gives specific feedback that makes the proposal stronger
OR you learn this isn't the right fit (also valuable)

The Question to Hold: "If Mike says no, will I still do this?" If yes—you're a founder. If no—this is a nice idea contingent on the right funder.

Section 2: Anticipated Questions & Talking Points

Category A: Your Credibility / Track Record

Question	Core Concern	Talking Point
"You've built social media followings—but have you scouted/funded people before?"	Can Gary actually identify talent?	"Civics Unplugged was exactly this. We identified 500+ young civic leaders, many now at top institutions. One of my closest mentees—who said I had the greatest impact on her life besides her parents—is now working at the White House at age 21, on AI policy with Howard Lutnick. Dancing Pineapple: bedroom artists I worked with early became touring artists at Coachella and EDC. Edge City Denver—I co-curated 2,500 technologists. Scouting exceptional people early is my core competency."
"The Facebook page was 2017, TikTok 2021—what have you shipped recently?"	Is Gary still executing or just theorizing?	"This year: Built Christofuturism Substack with aligned founders. Created The Daily Spirit—already put out an early proof of concept with a few trusted friends and I'm refining it now. Completed Gauntlet AI bootcamp. Wrote the strategic documents you've seen. The meme-building phase is done—now we build."
"Why you and not someone with deeper Christian institutional credibility?"	Is Gary an outsider?	"That's the point. Existing Christian institutions are backward-looking and siloed. I'm cross-denominational, tech-native, future-oriented. The network I'm building doesn't exist inside traditional structures."
"What's your personal spiritual life like?"	Is Gary genuinely committed or opportunistic?	"My spiritual life is documented in incredible detail at Faith Walk OS—garysheng.com/faithwalk. Daily prayer, church community, accountability relationships. I'm not performing faith for a pitch. This is my life."

Category B: Model Mechanics

Question	Core Concern	Talking Point
"Why $25K grants? Is that enough to matter?"	Are grants too small to attract serious people?	"It's intentional. Emergent Ventures does $10-50K. At this stage, we're scouting—testing who delivers. Small grants reveal character under constraint. Year 2-3, we concentrate larger capital ($50-100K) on proven performers."
"How do you actually select people? What's the process?"	Is this rigorous or vibes-based?	"Multiple layers. I'm the top-of-funnel guy—I bring in candidates through media, events, referrals. But spiritual integrity verification uses my network's gifts. My pastor is super gifted at discernment. One of my spiritual mothers has a much higher bar than I do—she's detected darkness in people I initially liked. We leverage the spiritual power of my network. It's not just interviews—it's gifts of the Spirit applied to selection."
"How is this different from giving money to friends?"	Nepotism concern	"Network effects are the point. The best founders know other great founders. But every grantee goes through the same process. I'm building a system, not funding my buddies. The scouting mechanisms—hackathons, media magnet, referral chains—bring in people I've never met."
"What happens when a grantee fails?"	Risk management	"Expected. Portfolio approach. Some will 10x, some will fail—we learn fast either way. What we're actually buying is data: which domains work, which people deliver, which approaches scale. A 'failed' grantee who's now in the network and referring others isn't a loss."

Category C: Skin in the Game / Risk

Question	Core Concern	Talking Point
"What's your personal downside if this doesn't work?"	Is Gary risking anything?	"I've left and turned down mid-six-figure tech jobs for this. If it fails, I've lost years of earning potential and staked my reputation on a vision that didn't work. This isn't a side project—it's my life bet."
"What if you're the only funder and no one else joins?"	Concentration risk	"Then we do what we can with what we have. The model works smaller—fewer grants, slower growth, but same mechanics. I'd rather build slowly with one aligned funder than chase money from people who don't get it. But realistically, this network will attract other funders once we have proof."
"Why should I fund this instead of something with proven track record?"	Opportunity cost	"Because proven track record in Christian philanthropy usually means 'existing institution doing the same thing for decades.' We're building new infrastructure. The school choice moment, the cultural shift, the AI disruption—this is a timing play. First movers win."

Category D: Spiritual / Values Alignment

Question	Core Concern	Talking Point
"How do you verify someone is genuinely committed to Christ?"	Quality control on 'Christian'	"Gifts of the Spirit help. Certain people in my life—and myself—have genuine spiritual discernment. My spiritual mother has detected darkness in people I initially liked. My pastor is super gifted. Beyond that: testimony, fruit, accountability. We're not doing theological purity tests. We're leveraging spiritual power to identify genuine devotion."
"How do you handle denominational differences?"	Will this cause conflict?	"I have friends who love and support me across denominations—including ones people dislike or think aren't even orthodox, like Mormonism. We need strategic unity, not quibbling over denominational differences. On the devil's side, there's a lot to fear in hyperagents across these denominations. What unites us is bigger than what divides."
"What about controversial figures or positions?"	Reputation risk	"I'm not for Nick Fuentes, for example. Not that everything he says is wrong, but there's a level of maturity required for long-term effectiveness. We're not feeding on current resentments or exploiting weaknesses in our social fabric. We're building institutions. Billy Graham standard: integrity above speed."

Category E: Competition / Differentiation

Question	Core Concern	Talking Point
"Why isn't an existing Christian org doing this?"	Is the gap real?	"Most Christian institutions are preservation-mode, not offense-mode. They're siloed by denomination, backward-looking, slow. We're building for the war, not the museum. Also: the fast-grant model is new. Tyler Cowen invented Emergent Ventures in 2018. This approach hasn't been applied to the kingdom yet."
"What about [specific org Mike knows]?"	Direct comparison	[Know the major players: TPUSA (politics-focused, not kingdom-building), Praxis (venture-focused, different model), TGC/Desiring God (content, not funding infrastructure). Be able to articulate how you're complementary, not competitive.]

Category F: Execution Concerns

Question	Core Concern	Talking Point
"Can you actually do all this yourself?"	Bandwidth	"The proposal focuses me on what I'm proven at: scouting, community, media. I'm not operating schools or managing complex institutions. The people I find and fund do the building. My job is to find them, connect them, and document what works."
"What if Year 1 doesn't go according to plan?"	Adaptability	"It won't. That's why we're optimizing for learning, not just outcomes. The metrics are: Did we find exceptional people? Did we learn which domains have leverage? Did we build the scouting flywheel? If yes, Year 2 is better even if specific grantees didn't pan out."
"What's the governance? How do I have visibility?"	Control / oversight	"Monthly updates, quarterly deep-dives. You can meet anyone I scout. This isn't passive philanthropy—you're an active partner. If something concerns you, we talk about it immediately."

Section 3: Questions You Should Ask Mike

Ask these explicitly. Write down his answers.

"What resonates most with you about this?"
- Tells you what he's actually excited about (not what you think he should be)
"What concerns you, even if small?"
- Surfaces objections before they become reasons to say no
"If you were designing this, what would you change?"
- Gives you his actual preferences, not just reactions
"What would success look like for you personally in Year 1?"
- His definition might differ from your metrics
"What would you need to see to feel confident moving forward?"
- This is the close—tells you exactly what's between you and yes
"Is there anyone else whose input you'd want before deciding?"
- Surfaces hidden decision-makers (wife, advisor, business partner)
"What's your timeline for making a decision like this?"
- Operational reality—can he write a check tomorrow or does he need 3 months?

Section 4: Hidden Objections to Surface

Things Mike might think but not say unless you ask directly:

"I've funded Christian projects before that didn't work out"
"I'm worried about being publicly associated with this if it gets controversial"
"I have another Christian leader I'm already supporting"
"I'm not sure about the warfare language—seems aggressive"
"I want this to succeed but $350-500K feels like a lot for Year 1 with no proof"
"What if Gary gets distracted or burns out?"
"My wife isn't on board with this level of giving"

The question that surfaces these:
"What concerns do you have that we haven't talked about yet?"

Section 5: Potential Negotiation Scenarios

Scenario	Mike Says	Your Response
Smaller commitment	"I love it but can only do $150K"	"That works. We adjust: smaller grant pool (8-10 grants vs 15-20), same mechanics, same learning. We prove the model at smaller scale and come back for Year 2."
Proof first	"Come back when you have proof"	"What would proof look like? If it's 'find 3-5 exceptional Christians and show early traction,' I can do that in 6 months. Would you fund that pilot?"
Co-funder requirement	"I want other funders involved"	"I agree that's ideal. Would you commit contingent on me finding $X from others? Or would you anchor the commitment and help me recruit additional funders?"
Personal involvement	"I want to be more involved than just funding"	"Great. How? Do you want to meet grantee candidates? Attend gatherings? Shape strategy? The more involved you are, the better this works."
Delayed timeline	"I need to think about this / talk to my wife / wait until Q2"	"Totally understand. What would be helpful for that process? Should I send additional materials? Would a call with your wife be useful? What's the right next step?"

Section 6: The Hype Video & Pre-Meeting Sequence

This is NOT a cold pitch. Mike already told you "we need a community of Garys." You're responding with a proposal.

Pre-Meeting Sequence:

Email Mike the hype video
He watches it (gets him spiritually primed)
He reads the V2 document
Email says: "Let me know when you can meet up. Here are some times, but I'm flexible to your schedule."
Meeting is a conversation, not a pitch

The hype video does the emotional work. The V2 document does the logical work. The meeting is for questions, alignment, and closing.

If you do need to give a verbal overview in the meeting:

Reference Mike's own words ("You said we need a community of Garys—this is how we build it")
Your origin story briefly (Dota, dance parties, Dancing Pineapple, building micro-movements)
The core idea: "I find them. We fund them. We connect them. We document what works. We bring the best to you."
The proven model (Thiel Fellowship, Emergent Ventures, YC)
The anti-Soros framing
The ask: $350-500K for Year 1
What he gets: community of high-agency Christians, first look at everyone, documented learnings

Section 7: Post-Meeting Reflection

After the meeting, write down:

What's Mike's #1 reason to say yes? (his reason, not the document's argument)
What's his #1 concern?
What would he change about the proposal?
What does success look like to him in 12 months?
What did I learn about what Mike wants that I didn't know before?

If #5 has 5+ substantive things—you had a good meeting.
If it's empty—you talked at him instead of with him.

Section 8: Draft Email to Mike

Subject: Community of Garys - Proposal

Mike,

Following up on our conversation about building a community of Garys.

I put together a short video and a detailed proposal. Watch the video first, then read the doc:

Video: [link]

Proposal: [link to V2 doc]

Let me know when you're free to meet. Some times that work for me: [insert times]. Happy to flex to your schedule.

Looking forward to it.

Gary

Notes:

Keep it short. The video and doc do the work.
Don't oversell in the email. Just deliver the materials.
"Community of Garys" is his language. Use it.

Section 9: Logistics Checklist

Section 10: Key Numbers to Know Cold

Item	Amount
Year 1 Total Ask	$350-500K
Gary's Salary	~$150K
Grant Pool	~$250-300K
Events/Operations	~$50K
Individual Grant Size	Up to $25K
Number of Grantees (Year 1)	15-20
YouTube Target (Year 1)	10K subscribers
Substack Target (Year 1)	1K new subscribers
Hackathons/Gatherings (Year 1)	2-4 events
Participants per Gathering	50-100

Section 11: Scouting Success Stories to Reference

White House Mentee:

One of your closest mentees
Said you had the greatest impact on her life besides her parents
Now working at the White House at age 21
On AI policy with Howard Lutnick
This is the proof that your scouting works

Dancing Pineapple Artists:

Bedroom artists you worked with early in their careers
Multiple became touring artists at Coachella, EDC, etc.
Pattern: You identify talent before the market does

Civics Unplugged:

Co-founded youth civic leadership org
Identified 500+ young civic leaders
Many now at top institutions
Backed by The Rock, Andrew Yang, Coinbase

Edge City Denver:

Co-curated gathering of 2,500 technologists at ETH Denver 2024
Shows you can create density among high-agency people

Section 12: Comparable Grant Models to Reference

Model	What They Do	What We Take
Thiel Fellowship	$100K to skip college and build	Back exceptional people early, before credentials validate them
Emergent Ventures	$10-50K micro-grants to high-agency builders	Fast decisions, minimal bureaucracy, portfolio approach
Y Combinator	Invest in people + build network effects	Best founders know other great founders; compounding network
Fast Grants	48-hour decisions, 3% overhead	Speed and low overhead prove this model works

Key stat to mention: 64% of Fast Grants recipients said the work wouldn't have happened otherwise. That's the counterfactual impact we're targeting.

Section 13: The "Why Now" Data Points

If Mike asks why this moment matters:

School choice expansion: 13 states now have universal programs (vs. 0 three years ago)
Texas TEFA: Launching 2026-27 with $1B allocated
Legislative momentum: 44 states introduced 561 school choice bills in 2024
Classical Christian education: Grew 50% in 5 years to 700+ schools
Cultural shift: Post-woke exhaustion is creating openness to tradition + faith
AI disruption: One person can now do what took teams before

The infrastructure window is open NOW.

Section 14: What You're NOT Asking Mike to Fund

Be clear about scope. You're NOT asking him to fund:

❌ Operating a school (grantees might do this; you won't)
❌ Managing complex institutions
❌ Political lobbying or culture war activism
❌ A single high-risk bet on one project
❌ Theoretical research with no practical output

You ARE asking him to fund:

✅ A scouting system that finds exceptional Christians
✅ Micro-grants that test who delivers
✅ Media that attracts ambitious believers
✅ Events that create density among high-agency Christians
✅ Documentation of what works (data, not vibes)
✅ A network that compounds over time

Critical Context​

Section 1: Meeting Mindset​

Section 2: Anticipated Questions & Talking Points​

Category A: Your Credibility / Track Record​

Category B: Model Mechanics​

Category C: Skin in the Game / Risk​

Category D: Spiritual / Values Alignment​

Category E: Competition / Differentiation​

Category F: Execution Concerns​

Section 3: Questions You Should Ask Mike​

Section 4: Hidden Objections to Surface​

Section 5: Potential Negotiation Scenarios​

Section 6: The Hype Video & Pre-Meeting Sequence​

Section 7: Post-Meeting Reflection​

Section 8: Draft Email to Mike​

Section 9: Logistics Checklist​

Section 10: Key Numbers to Know Cold​

Section 11: Scouting Success Stories to Reference​

Section 12: Comparable Grant Models to Reference​

Section 13: The "Why Now" Data Points​

Section 14: What You're NOT Asking Mike to Fund​