OGETH

if you want to start your career in VC, here are some of the best opportunities: 1. @a16z — Frontier Research Intern, NYC ($3.5K–$4.5K/week). deadline: Nov 20 jobs.a16z.com/jobs/andreesse… 2. @PrecursorVC — AI & Investment Operations Intern (paid, part-time, no VC experience required). deadline: Nov 29 precursorvc.com/internship-a… 3. @BessemerVP — Summer Analyst 2028, NYC ($2.2K/week + $5K housing). deadline: Nov 30 job-boards.greenhouse.io/bvp… 4. RootedIn VC — Fellowship (Stanford students, 10 weeks). deadline: Dec 13 cresca.ai/apply/fi_cc764f67b… 5. @kleinerperkins — 2027 Engineering Fellow. deadline: Jan 31 jobs.ashbyhq.com/kleinerperk… 6. @kleinerperkins — 2027 Design Fellow. deadline: Jan 31 jobs.ashbyhq.com/kleinerperk… 7. @TrueBridgeCP — 2027 Summer Analyst, Chapel Hill (10 weeks, rising seniors) truebridgecapital.applytojob… 8. DRW Venture Capital — VC Analyst Intern, Chicago ($80K annualized + housing) job-boards.greenhouse.io/drw… 9. @EqualVentures — Analyst/Associate, NYC ($75K–$200K + fund carry) jobs.ashbyhq.com/equal-ventu… 10. Cross Creek — Investment Analyst/Associate, Salt Lake City (0–2 years experience) crosscreek.vc/careerposts/in… 11. @galaxyhq — Associate, Venture Investor, NYC ($150K–$175K + bonus/equity) job-boards.greenhouse.io/gal… 12. @pillar_vc — Investing Analyst, Boston (seed-stage investing) pillar.vc/careers/investing-… 13. @pillar_vc — Venture Associate, Deep-Tech, London pillar.vc/careers/venture-as… 14. TheVentureCity — Investment Team Intern, Madrid (paid, 6 months) theventurecity.typeform.com/… what did i miss?

best vc content formats based on my experience - deep research into specific niches and market shifts. for example, @gregisenberg wrote an excellent article, "$5T Opportunity: AI Roll Ups," which we probably should've written ourselves, considering how early we invested in Dwelly. this is a great format because you help readers understand the reasoning behind a particular opportunity, backed by data and experience. it could also be research into a broader market shift, like @kwharrison13's article "The Death of Venture Capital's Short Kings." the key to making this format work is having real expertise and being able to explain complex things in a way people can easily understand. - investment theses. this is similar to the first format, but it's more actionable because you're actually putting your own money behind the thesis. you explain where you see opportunities and market inefficiencies, then show how you're acting on them. a great example is @GEVS94's article "Rise of the Borderless Founder," which explains the reasoning and data behind the thesis while also showing what they're doing about it: hosting dinners for these founders, recruiting them, and investing in them. - breakdowns of recent deals. calculate who made how much money, what multiples investors achieved, and so on. this is @PaulBonnet's signature format, and it consistently gets great views. most people either can't be bothered to do the math or don't know how. seeing the actual numbers when someone has already done the work for you is always interesting and genuinely useful for understanding what's happening in the market. - interesting early-stage artifacts. what a unicorn looked like when you first invested in it. an interesting story about a portfolio company's founder. @a16z posted "Cursor, 4 years ago," featuring a Hacker News screenshot where the founder described the project as an email extension. it got 1.4M views. they've also posted what SpaceX's first reactor looked like, Airbnb's website in 2008, and so on. all of these posts performed extremely well. - lists and maps of startups or people. curated lists and rankings almost always get great engagement. there are two main reasons. first, you tag people and appeal to their egos. people naturally want to react to and share content that features them. second, you've done the research and created something that solves a real problem for someone. say someone wants to learn about VC. here's a list of the best creators covering the venture capital industry. that same list is also useful for GPs and CMOs at other funds who are building their own content strategies. this is one of @cosign's main growth strategies, and it works extremely well because of the obvious network effect. - interpreting research data. take an interesting statistic and explain what it actually means, or challenge a well-known investor's or founder's opinion using data. this format is particularly effective. @credistick is great at it, and his content consistently gets strong views. not everyone can connect the dots and draw conclusions from numbers, and plenty of people don't even look at the data. presenting it this way gives your arguments real evidence. - podcasts and clips. this is becoming especially relevant following the recent announcement from @XCreators, and @HarryStebbings has really nailed this format. but you can't just start another podcast because everyone else is doing it. the space is genuinely overcrowded. you need to understand exactly what problem you're solving and for whom. before launching, check whether someone else is already solving that problem better than you could. there's not much point in starting yet another podcast unless you can get someone like @elonmusk on it. you need to know who's going to watch and why. - educational content. how to fundraise, how venture capital works, and so on. @harris has been publishing some good articles in this format recently. there are two things to keep in mind. first, who's reading it? if your goal is to attract LPs, they obviously already know the basics, and so do experienced founders. this type of content usually attracts beginners and tends to work well on TikTok, Instagram, and similar platforms. second, check whether someone has already explained the topic better than you plan to. writing the hundredth explanation of how venture capital works isn't going to add much value if you have nothing new to say. - personal reflections. just observations from your own life and work. which types of founders tend to perform better, something non-obvious you've learned about relationships, whatever. anything you think could be useful that comes from your personal experience. sometimes it's just a thought worth sharing. - digests of what happened over the past week or month. a great format when you focus on a specific niche. @pavelprata is perfect with his monthly VC/LP debrief. if you don't have a large audience yet, don't try to cover every piece of news. pick a smaller segment you know really well and become the best and most popular source in that niche first. - nostalgia. what happened in VC over the past year? this isn't a regular format, but it can be amazing if you put real effort into it. some friends of mine who ran a large football media account used to create incredible illustrations capturing the year's biggest and most memorable moments through tiny details. they'd then build a list around those illustrations. - interactive content. recently, all kinds of vibe-coded websites featuring memes have gone viral. @vkleban made a cool game where both players are controlled by Jev models. others have built websites that calculate how much your X account is worth, and so on. if you execute the idea well and make people curious enough to try it, this format almost always performs extremely well. lower-quality formats that still work - announcing that you're investing and asking people to drop their pitch decks, websites, or startup descriptions in the comments. it's engagement farming and tends to attract a lower-quality audience, but it works for generating views. - memes about recent events. just look at @TurnerNovak's most popular posts. almost all of them are memes. maybe one in ten really takes off, and the audience isn't always that relevant, but the format clearly works. - shitposting and short takes. i'm not a fan of this format, and frankly, i'm not very good at it. still, these posts can occasionally get incredible traction. @chiefofautism has built a great audience with this approach.

best character traits for founders who are about to fundraise - childhood trauma. as we know, some of the most successful people are also the most traumatized. someone with a healthy work-life balance and everything going well in their life doesn't have much reason to dedicate their entire life to building a billion-dollar company. childhood trauma can create incredibly strong, long-term motivation. for some founders, building a company becomes a way to prove something to themselves or the world, and that motivation can last for decades. - disagreeableness. as an entrepreneur, you can't agree with everyone. you need focus and clear priorities. at some point, you'll have to fire a friend, replace your CEO, turn down a major client, and make plenty of other difficult decisions. you need to be comfortable making those calls, even when people are unhappy with you. if you're constantly trying to please everyone, you'll end up making decisions that are bad for the company. - heretical thinking. the biggest opportunities often exist where something widely accepted turns out to be wrong or simply not the best solution. most people never even question those assumptions, let alone try to prove them wrong or build something better. it takes a certain type of person to challenge conventional wisdom. people will laugh at them, dismiss their ideas, and tell them they're wasting their time. they don't particularly care because they genuinely believe they're right and are determined to prove it. - neurodivergence. ASD, ADHD, etc. you've probably noticed that a lot of founders are pretty unusual people. there's a reason for that. building something extraordinary often requires a mindset that most people don't have. the pressure is enormous, the uncertainty never really goes away, and most people wouldn't want to live like that. some neurodivergent founders can turn traits like intense focus, unconventional thinking, and obsessive interest in a particular problem into a serious advantage. they can spend years working on something that other people would have given up on long ago. - speed. focus, focus, focus, and speed of execution. that's what makes the difference. everyone has the same 24 hours in a day, yet one person can accomplish in a day what takes someone else a week. the best founders move incredibly fast, make decisions without overthinking every detail, and dedicate themselves completely to what they're building. work smart, work hard, and keep moving. the faster you execute, the faster you learn, and the harder it becomes for competitors to catch up. - technical talent. people with exceptional technical ability are rare, and unlike the other traits on this list, this is a hard skill. in my experience, it often comes with at least some of the characteristics mentioned above. these people can be difficult to communicate with, incredibly demanding, and obsessed with details that most people don't even notice. but when someone has exceptional technical ability and the ambition to build a company, they can create products that would be almost impossible for an average team to replicate. that's an enormous advantage, especially at the earliest stages.

the fundraising market is practically closed to most emerging managers right now. which raises an important question: when should you actually start raising Fund II? and what should trigger that decision? the median time to raise Fund II was approximately 12 months for 2019–2024 cohorts, measured from first sale to the reported near-final amount. and median Fund II fundraising targets were $32M in Q3 2024, $23M in Q3 2025, and $28M in Q3 2026. so should you start fundraising once you've deployed a certain percentage of Fund I? once you have strong performance metrics? or when your portfolio has the most momentum and LP interest is strongest? 1. start preparing for Fund II almost as soon as Fund I closes. start building LP relationships early, tracking the metrics they'll care about, understanding which existing LPs are likely to re-up, and figuring out what needs to happen before you're ready to launch. LP fundraising is slow. institutional LPs may want to know a manager for 2–3 years before investing, and a fundraise can easily take 12–18 months or longer. waiting until you're almost out of capital is like waiting until your startup has three months of runway before starting to raise a Series A. 2. did you do what you said you were going to do? if you said you'd invest a $25M fund across 25 companies, did you? are those companies performing? who followed on? do several have a realistic path to returning the fund? what do founders say about working with you? these are much more useful signals than waiting for DPI, because most seed portfolios simply aren't mature enough to have meaningful exits by the time Fund II needs to be raised. think of it as the VC equivalent of a startup hitting its Series A milestones. you've proven your strategy. you're getting into the deals you said you could. several portfolio companies are breaking out. founders and co-investors can validate your edge. existing LPs want to re-up, and the size of your next fund makes sense. once those things are in place, you should be ready to start raising.