Zero Cheating

A patented solution protecting academic integrity from Artificial Intelligence (AI

Last Funded October 2023


raised from 74 investors


Experienced team with over 40 years combined business experience
$75,000 Endorsing Investment by a Yale Professor, Dr. Andrew Campbell
Sustainable competitive advantage (Non-Provisional Utility Patent Filed)
The Tech Company decided to invest over $100k of development services for equity instead of billing

Our Team

I chose this idea because I am passionate about education. I found out over 50% of students in some classes were cheating by sharing exam photos despite proctoring.


Hi, I am Neil Parsont, President of Zero Cheating - a fully automated online proctoring service. I need your investment to stop cheating during online exams. Thank you for viewing my presentation.

I have personally seen students share exam photos from proctored exams in large group chats of over 100 students. Cheating is the new pandemic. Furthermore, students are very frustrated with the unnecessary privacy invasion and data collection of existing proctoring services – hence the legal complaint filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Imagine a world where students never cheated and actually learned the material – welcome to Zero Cheating!

Almost all cheating is done in one of two ways. Using the phone outside the webcam viewing area or with another person in the room. The proprietary patent-pending camera uses a wide-angle lens so the keyboard, surrounding area, student's body and hands are always on camera. The motion sensor makes it impossible for another person to remain in the room undetected. Thus, students are unable to cheat in either of these two ways.

Almost all cheating is done in one of two ways. Using the phone outside the webcam viewing area or with another person in the room. The proprietary patent-pending camera uses a wide-angle lens so the keyboard, surrounding area, student's body and hands are always on camera. The motion sensor makes it impossible for another person to remain in the room undetected. Thus, students are unable to cheat in either of these two ways.

Viewing the student’s background is not necessary to prevent cheating and violates their privacy. The background filter protects the student's privacy without allowing them to cheat. In terms of ensuring the correct student is taking the exam, conventional proctoring systems attempt to match the student's face against a small image on their student ID. This method is very prone to errors and easy to circumvent. Zero Cheating offers institutions the choice of multiple biometric identity verification methods to verify the identity of the test taker.

Zero Cheating’s larger viewing area and motion sensor make it less reliant on AI which is very important. Studies have shown AI has inherent bias against certain groups so reducing reliance on this technology helps to avoid many discrimination issues.

We have two primary goals. First, we want institutions to trust us to ensure the academic integrity of their exams. Second, we want exam takers to feel comfortable and respected. As opposed to being viewed as a spy trying to catch the student cheating, we are creating an environment where cheating is simply not possible. Because we are not invading students' privacy with room scans, using a background privacy filter and creating an honest test-taking environment, Zero Cheating enjoys a more favorable student perception.

Our vision and values were carefully selected to achieve these goals.

I have extensive experience tutoring and communicating with students of all grade levels. This experience helps me know not only exactly how students cheat (they directly tell/confide in me) but understand why they cheat. One of the main reasons is opportunity. This knowledge helped me craft the ultimate system to prevent (as opposed to try and detect) all forms of cheating.

The success of the business involves two critical functions: Sales to institutions and a fully functional hardware/software combination. To maximize chances of success, Zero Cheating insourced both functions. Dr. Levy and Mr. Bordy both have vesting equity stakes to maximize their efforts.

Dr. Levy has over 25 years business experience, 8 of which are in c-suite level positions. She was previously a professor at NYU and published in 7 double-blind peer review studies. She has worked as CMO and CRO for multiple companies increasing revenue to 100 million per annum. Recently, she has been working as CMO and selling directly to universities. She has relationships and sales experience with hundreds of universities and thousands of contacts. She is currently in preliminary negotiations with over 45 universities for Zero Cheating.

Mr. Bordy has over 10 years of experience managing and developing prototypes and software through his company. He has led and participated in numerous programs with national and international brands, such as: Office Depot, Home Depot, Lowes, BMW Design works USA, ACCO, V-Tech, Li & Fung, Big Red Roster, Emerson, SanDisk, Skill, Craftsmen, Husky, Workforce, Case Logic, and private labels.

For Zero Cheating, he leads a dedicated team of experts in updating and maintaining top level software and hardware for Zero Cheating.

Our focus is on the US market and all the financials conservatively include only this market. Therefore, we allow significant upside potential for investors. Currently, Respondus a lock down browser webcam combination, has 65% usage by universities followed by ProctorU at 23%. Universities sometimes use multiple services and do not have any exclusive agreements. Thus, considering no switching barriers, the 20% target market share by year 5 is extremely conservative considering Zero Cheating offers a significantly better service at the same price point.

The prototype and MVP software are complete, and testing is coordinated for the Spring Semester of 2023 with multiple professors at different universities. We are currently in preliminary negotiations with over 45 universities regarding using Zero Cheating as their proctoring service provider and reaching out to more on a regular basis.

*Forward-looking projections can't be guaranteed.

$10.95 is the industry standard for automated proctoring whereas live proctoring can cost from $15 to $30 per exam per student. The cost of the camera is conservatively forecasted to be absorbed by Zero Cheating. However, it is very likely this cost can be passed on to the university or end user nearly doubling gross profit. The operating expenses include marketing, website development, salaries, compliance documents, and legal contracts during the first 13 months. The average time to close a sale with a university is 9 months but the model conservatively assumes 1 year. The EBITDA multiple is rounded down to 10 from 12.34 since the company is private (

*Forward-looking projections can't be guaranteed.

The pro-forma is the most conservative successful scenario. The market share is assumed to only be 20% (optimistic scenario is we overtake Respondus as the market leader at 60%). Additionally, the forecast assumes Zero Cheating pays the entire cost of the camera (Cost of revenue line) whereas that cost ($5/camera) can likely be passed on to either the university or student. If we achieve the optimistic scenario (60% market share and passing the cost of the camera) the exit multiple would be over 100x.

I personally have invested over $75,000 in the business for the patent, business planning, software and prototype development. I invested my money in this business because I believe in the mission and the importance of protecting academic integrity. We have the right team in place and are ready to launch this business and transform the online exam proctoring industry. No longer will proctoring be about catching students cheating. Instead, we are creating an environment where students can’t cheat and instead are motivated to learn the material.

I greatly appreciate your time and consideration in investing the academic future of our country and eventually the world.

*Forward-looking projections can't be guaranteed.

A single contract for the automated service (No human involvement) can be in excess of $350,000. None of the existing contracts are exclusive so universities are free to switch providers. We are making FOIA requests to over 100 public universities, so we know exactly who they are paying, how much and the specific contractual agreement as well. This information enables us to negotiate quickly and efficiently, the best deal possible.