I am a bit surprised that no one has a YouTube fund. If the premise is that the world we live is an ad-supported one, then as a sales guy I see the YouTube fund being able to provide far better returns than the FB and iPhone ones (especially when you consider that the FB platform is a double-edged sword and the iPhone isn’t exactly getting everyone excited).

Why has no VC launched a fund to back video projects surrounding YouTube?

In my opinion, monetizing YouTube is the single greatest business opportunity online right now:

- YouTube streams 1 out of 3 videos;

- YouTube is part of the most profitable online media company, Google;

- Online video advertising is the next high growth area;

- YouTube has hitherto not generated any meaningful revenue, so the upside is far more considerable;

In wireless, I agree that the iPhone might be the next big thing, but right now, its market share is tiny next to market leader Nokia, who has 40% of the world’s global market.

As per social networking, Facebook is not even #1, MySpace is. MySpace and Facebook are fantastic platforms but remain challenging to monetize, if the premise is that advertising is the monetization route.

But YouTube’s upside is becoming pretty crystal clear: over time, it will be a massive ecosystem when you consider that online video ads will grow 7x in the next 4 years and the network effects of YouTube gathering the world’s video content will continue to grow. Bear in mind, YouTube is both a promotional and a commercial platform, if the audiences and streams continue to grow, then it’s a matter of time before more - if not all - content owners want some kind of presence on the site. This is not a zero sum game: I am also very bullish on MySpace TV because I think the media DNA will serve it very well (full disclosure: WatchMojo.com has ever larger presences and reach on both MySpace TV and YouTube, along with a hundred other such sites).

Anyway, I am trying to think as to why there is no YouTube fund. Perhaps because invariably a YouTube fund would require that the fund invests in content, and VCs remain jittery about content plays (though that is changing more and more).

But if that’s not the reason, why is that?

1. It can’t be because Facebook is privately held; Apple, after all, is a massively profitable publicly traded firm sitting on $18B in cash.

2. Can’t be size: Facebook is much smaller than YouTube.

3. Can’t be market leadership: Nokia remains king of the mountain with 40% market share, yes the iPhone’s market share is pretty impressive, but its projected success in handheld devices remains a big potential concept and not really a fait accompli. Facebook is #2 to MySpace. Yet YouTube is clearly the #1 in its space.

4. Can’t be propensity to monetize: as a social networking site, Facebook is difficult to monetize, yet as the world’s largest video collection of video clips, YouTube represents easier ways to monetize.

5. Can’t be platform universality: iPhone will remain closed in that all wireless protocols and platforms are generally closed relative to their online peer; Facebook is also largely closed with regards to data portability.

6. Can’t be a lack of clarity in the prevailing model: We live in an ad-supported world, yet neither social networking nor wireless have any success in advertising relative to the Web; whereas YouTube’s likelihood to become a major monetization platform is pretty much a matter of time and execution.

Should Google launch one?

I’d love people’s take on this. Something seems off.