VC investors have enabled the AI industry to bastardize revenue reporting. In the 2010s, SaaS companies popularized reporting the metric of Annual Run Rate because it was a reliable measure of long term, contractual revenues into the future. The key is that the revenues are contracted and guaranteed thru the contract life hence why forecasting it forward is appropriate. VCs have taken this to mean Annualized Run Rate when AI is concerned and where you take transactional/API revenue from the last month (or even last week in some cases) and forecast it forward. It’s insane that investors have enabled this to happen but it’s happened.

📊 VC Funds With the Highest Lead Rate in 2026 Among funds with 10+ rounds this year, @galaxyhq takes the top spot with a 70% lead rate. @a16z is also worth noting — it has the most lead deals of any fund here. Lead rate is calculated by dividing the rounds a fund led by the total rounds it took part in.

Every VC-backed tech company is hiring a Head of Content right now. If you’re someone who is: > chronically online > understands how to engineer virality > can build distribution without spending millions on ads You have a skill set that companies are willing to pay $50k+ a month for.

every VC-backed tech company wants to hire A players. the problem is that the best people in tech are also some of THE most sought-after talent in the world. they either have companies throwing insane amounts of money at them to join, or they're already making more money building their own businesses than they would working for yours. so how do you actually convince exceptional people to come work for you? the traditional strategy was to recruit people with polished resumes who held senior positions at some of the biggest companies in the world. but working at a successful company doesn't necessarily mean you contributed much to its success. people often get credited for building companies they actually played a relatively small role in growing. instead of chasing impressive job titles and big names on a resume, i'd rather recruit people who are extremely high agency, young, hungry, and care more about their learning curve than their income trajectory. i call this the hiring "mini future CEOs" strategy. find people who: 1) treat your company like it's their own 2) take initiative without needing someone to tell them what to do 2) have the capability to build and run their own mini business within your organization i'll use myself as an example. over the last 6 months, i've generated 20M+ views through X and built a strong understanding of marketing and distribution. but when i first joined Flex, i had barely 2K followers and nowhere near the experience i have today. what made the difference was being given the freedom to experiment, make mistakes, and take ownership of things that someone my age would rarely get the opportunity to work on. and i think more founders should approach recruiting this way: there are a LOT of incredibly smart, ambitious young people who would gladly take a lower salary for the opportunity to work directly with exceptional founders, take real ownership, and learn how to build a company from the inside. instead of competing with hundreds of companies to recruit someone who's already A+ talent, find someone with A+ potential who just hasn't had the experience or opportunity to prove themselves yet. give them the right mentorship, guidance, and freedom to build, and you will end up with someone who's not only exceptional at their job, but far more loyal to your company than someone you had to outbid everyone else to hire.

New VC term sheet option for founders: when the inevitable movie is made about this company we will help produce it and pick who is cast as you. There are three different movies and one documentary about various tech personalities we know here this year (?!).