Most venture capital firms still source the majority of their deals the same way they did twenty years ago: warm referrals, conference introductions, and waiting for inbound pitch decks to land in the inbox. That model works, until it doesn’t. In competitive markets, by the time a founder is circulating their deck widely, three other firms have already had the first conversation.<\/p>\n
LinkedIn changes that math, but almost nobody uses it correctly. The platform has over one billion members. Founders list their title, their company stage, their hiring activity, and often their entire product roadmap in public posts. The signals are there. Most VCs just aren’t reading them.<\/p>\n
This guide is about building a structured LinkedIn outreach system specifically for venture capital deal sourcing. It covers how to find founders before they start fundraising, what to say when you reach out, how to use content to warm your outbound, where automation helps and where it gets you into trouble, and how to turn a LinkedIn conversation into an actual meeting. Every section is built for a VC who already knows how LinkedIn works and wants to know how to use it as a real deal sourcing channel.<\/p>\n
Venture capital has a structural bias toward known networks. Most partners invest through people they already know, which means the same founders keep getting funded while an enormous pool of qualified builders outside those networks never gets a first conversation. LinkedIn exists specifically to break that problem open. The data on how VCs actually source deals makes the gap very clear.<\/p>\n
Referral-based deal sourcing does not scale. A VC relying entirely on warm introductions is bounded by the size and quality of their existing network. That ceiling matters more at smaller funds where name recognition alone won’t drive inbound from top founders.<\/p>\n
The numbers make this concrete. Flybridge Venture published data showing that only 1 in 60 of their funded deals came through a cold introduction. The implication is not that cold outreach is useless; it’s that most cold outreach is done so poorly that the conversion rate makes it look useless. Well-targeted, personalized LinkedIn outreach operates on completely different terms. According to data from Qubit Capital, personalized LinkedIn connection requests to relevant founders see a 38% acceptance rate when the message is well-targeted. That’s not a bad starting point for a cold channel.<\/p>\n
The problem is that most VCs either don’t reach out on LinkedIn at all, or they use it as a broadcast channel and send generic connection requests that read like mass emails. Neither approach builds deal flow. A structured system does.<\/p>\n
No other B2B channel gives a VC firm the specific combination of data that LinkedIn provides. The platform has over one billion members, and a meaningful percentage of those members are founders who self-identify their role, company, industry, and stage through their profile.<\/p>\n
Beyond the basic profile data, LinkedIn offers real-time behavioral signals. A founder who just posted about their product launch is actively building. One who posted about a new VP of Sales hire is probably thinking about revenue growth, which often precedes a fundraising conversation. A co-founder who recently changed their title from “Co-Founder” to “CEO” is signaling something about the team structure.<\/p>\n
Sales Navigator adds another layer: company headcount data, headcount growth rates, job postings, and recent news. When combined with the activity signals, this is not just a contact list. It’s a live feed of what founders are doing right now. Crunchbase and AngelList can tell you what happened in the past. LinkedIn tells you what’s happening this week.<\/p>\n
Most VCs who try LinkedIn as a sourcing channel focus on one thing: finding founders and sending them messages. That’s outbound deal sourcing, and it works when done correctly. But it’s only half the opportunity.<\/p>\n
The other half is inbound visibility: building a LinkedIn presence that attracts founders to you before you ever reach out. When a founder researches an investor before taking a meeting (and they always do), your LinkedIn profile is one of the first things they read. A profile that clearly communicates your thesis, your portfolio wins, and your sector expertise converts an outbound connection request into an accepted meeting at a much higher rate than a thin, generic profile. The two modes are not separate strategies. They work together. Outbound without inbound visibility is cold. Inbound without outbound is passive. Together, they create a compounding system where every piece of content you post warms your next batch of outreach messages.<\/p>\n
The competitive window in VC deal sourcing is the six to twelve months before a founder starts circulating a deck. At that point, they’re building, they’re thinking about what comes next, and they’re open to conversations with people who bring a clear perspective on their space. Most funds miss that window entirely because they’re reactive, not proactive. LinkedIn lets you be proactive if you know what to search for.<\/p>\n
Before opening Sales Navigator, you need a clear founder ICP (Ideal Company Profile). This is not a vague description like “B2B SaaS, Series A.” It’s a specific set of signals that indicate a founder is in your target stage and sector, and is likely to be raising within the next six to twelve months.<\/p>\n
The signals worth filtering for include:<\/p>\n
The goal is not to build a 5,000-person list. It’s to build a 200-person list that is tightly filtered to people who actually fit your investment thesis, so that the outreach you send is specific enough to get a reply.<\/p>\n
Sales Navigator has over 50 search filters, but most people use five. For VC deal sourcing, the filters that actually move the needle are different from what a sales team would use.<\/p>\n
Here is a step-by-step search architecture for early-stage deal sourcing:<\/p>\n
A well-constructed boolean search in Sales Navigator might look like: (“Founder” OR “Co-Founder” OR “CEO”) AND (“AI” OR “machine learning” OR “LLM”) NOT (“Consultant” OR “Advisor” OR “Freelance”). The NOT exclusions matter. LinkedIn’s founder population includes a significant number of consultants and advisors who use founder titles. Excluding them tightens your list considerably.<\/p>\n
A saved search in Sales Navigator runs automatically and sends you alerts when new profiles match your filters. That’s the baseline. The more valuable practice is reading behavioral signals as leading indicators of a fundraising conversation.<\/p>\n
The signals worth tracking include:<\/p>\n
Save the founders who show multiple signals to a named list in Sales Navigator and set up lead alerts. You want to know the week something changes, not two months later.<\/p>\n
LinkedIn gives you the people signals. Crunchbase and AngelList give you the funding signals. The most effective sourcing workflow combines both.<\/p>\n
Start with a Crunchbase search filtered by stage (pre-seed or seed), round date (no new funding in the last 12-18 months, indicating they may be approaching the next raise), sector, and geography. Export the company names and use them to cross-reference on LinkedIn, where you can pull the founder’s profile directly. AngelList (now Wellfound) runs a similar play and tends to surface more technical founders who may have a lower LinkedIn footprint but are actively job-posting on the platform.<\/p>\n
The enrichment workflow works in both directions. You can also start with a Sales Navigator list and run the company names through Crunchbase to check the last funding date, the total raised to date, and the investor roster. A founder who raised a $500K pre-seed 18 months ago and has been posting hiring content for the last two quarters is in a very specific position. That context makes the outreach message far more specific and far more likely to get a response.<\/p>\n
Finding the right founders is a targeting problem. Getting them to reply is a messaging problem. The two are separate skills, and most VCs who figure out the targeting still make the same mistakes in the message. This section is about the message.<\/p>\n
The baseline metrics for LinkedIn outreach are public enough to be useful as benchmarks. Targeted connection requests to relevant profiles see a 30 to 40% acceptance rate when the message is specific to the recipient. Qubit Capital’s data on VC outreach confirms this range and shows that impersonal cold messaging drops well below 1% for meaningful response rates.<\/p>\n
The math is simple. If your connection request acceptance rate is 35% but your follow-up message reply rate is 2%, you are not running outreach at that point. You are broadcasting. The gap between a 35% acceptance rate and a 20%+ reply rate is entirely in the quality of the first message after connection. Generic follow-ups like “I’d love to connect and learn more about what you’re building” have no specific reason for the founder to respond. They’ve seen that message forty times this month.<\/p>\n
The standard for a good first message is not creativity. It’s specificity. Can the founder read the message and understand exactly why you’re reaching out, what you know about their company, and what you’re offering? If any part of that is vague, the reply rate drops.<\/p>\n
The most reliable message structure for VC outreach on LinkedIn leads with your investment thesis before anything else. Founders are pitched constantly. They are not pitched constantly by investors who open with a clear, specific explanation of why they invest in exactly what the founder is building.<\/p>\n
The thesis-first framework:<\/p>\n
The total message length should be four to six sentences. Longer messages require more effort to read and signal that the sender needs more from the interaction than they’re offering.<\/p>\n
Not every founder on your target list requires a cold message. Some will have a mutual connection, a shared investor, or a portfolio company in common. Those are warm-path opportunities, and they convert at a significantly higher rate than cold outreach.<\/p>\n
The distinction matters for prioritization:<\/p>\n
The practical workflow: run your Sales Navigator list through TeamLink first. Pull out anyone with a clear warm path and run those through an intro request. Work the remaining list as cold outreach with a tight thesis-first message. Never mix them in the same sequence.<\/p>\n
A single message is not a system. Founders are busy. Even if they read your first message and found it interesting, they may not have responded because they were on a product sprint, traveling, or just didn’t get to it. A multi-step sequence accounts for this without being annoying.<\/p>\n
The sequence that works for VC outreach:<\/p>\n
Do not run this sequence as a single automated blast. The Day 7 and Day 10 steps require you to actually read what happened in the previous messages. If a founder opened the Day 3 message and viewed your profile but didn’t reply, that’s a warm signal. Your Day 7 follow-up should account for it.<\/p>\n
Sales Navigator includes a monthly InMail allocation. On the Core plan, this is around 50 InMails per month. On Advanced plans, the count goes up. InMail lets you message LinkedIn members outside your network without waiting for a connection request to be accepted.<\/p>\n
The practical distinction:<\/p>\n
Save your InMail credits for high-priority targets who are unlikely to accept a cold connection request from someone outside their existing network. For most mid-stage founders, the connection request route is faster and converts better.<\/p>\n
The outbound playbook works. But the VCs who consistently see high-quality inbound deal flow are not the ones who send the most messages. They’re the ones founders already know before the first message arrives. That’s what LinkedIn content does when used correctly: it turns cold outreach into a warm follow-up.<\/p>\n
Before a founder accepts a meeting with an investor, they research them. This is standard practice. The first place most founders look is LinkedIn. What they find determines whether they take the meeting or not.<\/p>\n
A LinkedIn profile that clearly communicates investment thesis, portfolio company outcomes, and sector expertise does three things at once. It validates that the investor is who they say they are. It gives the founder a reason to believe the investor can add value beyond capital. And it creates a basis for a specific conversation, rather than a generic getting-to-know-you call.<\/p>\n
The practical implication: your LinkedIn profile is not a bio. It’s a pitch to founders. Treat it that way. The headline should state your thesis, not your title. The About section should explain what you invest in and why, not your career history. The Featured section should show portfolio company wins or content that demonstrates your sector expertise. A founder who reads this profile before receiving your connection request is already halfway to yes.<\/p>\n
Content on LinkedIn creates ambient awareness. A founder who has seen your posts three times in their feed before you reach out is not receiving a cold message. They’re receiving a message from someone they recognize. The conversion difference is significant.<\/p>\n
The content types that attract founder attention:<\/p>\n
Posting cadence matters because LinkedIn’s algorithm rewards consistent activity. Three to four posts per week keeps you in the feed of your connections and followers without overwhelming it. Below two posts per week and the reach drops sharply.<\/p>\n
The mechanism here is simple and backed by how LinkedIn’s notification system works. When a founder who follows your content receives a connection request from you, they recognize your name before they click to view your profile. That recognition converts to a connection acceptance at a higher rate than cold outreach from a name they’ve never seen.<\/p>\n
The same effect applies at the message stage. If a founder has read your thesis post twice in the past month and you reference it in your first message (“I wrote about what we’re seeing in AI infrastructure last week, and your company is exactly the type of build I was describing”), the reply rate goes up because you’re not asking them to evaluate you from scratch. They already have a frame for who you are.<\/p>\n
This is the part of the LinkedIn playbook that most VC firms completely ignore. They think of outreach and content as separate activities. They’re not. Content is the warm-up. Outreach is the ask. Running outreach without content is like asking for a referral from someone who doesn’t know you exist.<\/p>\n
Automation in LinkedIn outreach is a real conversation, not an ethical debate. The question is not whether to automate. It’s what to automate without breaking the thing that makes VC outreach work, which is a founder’s trust that there’s a real investor on the other end of the conversation.<\/p>\n
A B2B sales team running high-volume LinkedIn outreach takes on a specific type of risk when automation goes wrong: they get ignored, blocked, or marked as spam. That’s bad, but it’s contained. A venture capital firm running the same playbook takes on a different risk: reputational damage that happens publicly.<\/p>\n
Founders talk to each other. When a VC’s automated message gets called out in a public Twitter\/X post or LinkedIn thread, the firm’s ability to source deals from that founder’s entire network is damaged. The social graph in startup ecosystems is tighter than it appears. A Sequoia partner sending mass automated pitches would make the news. A first-time fund manager doing the same thing gets quietly blacklisted by the founder communities they need most. The reputational stakes are specific to the audience here. This is not a reason to avoid automation entirely. It’s a reason to be deliberate about where automation sits in the workflow.<\/p>\n
Several parts of the VC LinkedIn outreach workflow are pure infrastructure. They don’t require a human in the loop and they don’t affect the quality of the relationship.<\/p>\n
The safe automation layer includes:<\/p>\n
The line is this: anything that requires knowing what a specific founder actually said, or responding to what they wrote, must be written by a human.<\/p>\n
The principle is not complicated. Automate the sending. Keep the thinking human.<\/p>\n
The middle ground between full automation and fully manual outreach is AI-assisted personalization. This is where AI tools have started to create real leverage for outbound teams that need to run outreach across hundreds of leads without making every message sound identical.<\/p>\n
The mechanics of this at scale: an AI tool reads the founder’s profile, recent posts, and company data, then generates a specific observation that can be inserted into a message template. The VC reviews the message before it sends, adds or edits the specific observation, and approves the final version. This is not the AI sending messages autonomously. It’s the AI doing the research legwork so the human can focus on the judgment call.<\/p>\n
Tools built specifically for this kind of workflow, including Dealsflow’s Arlo AI which handles full post-reply conversations autonomously rather than stopping when a reply comes in, are built around this handoff model. The AI handles early-stage message personalization and initial reply management, flags high-intent responses based on content signals (a founder asking about check size or investment timeline, for example), and surfaces those for a partner to take over directly. The handoff has to be smooth enough that the founder doesn’t notice the transition. That means the AI-handled portion has to stay in the exploratory stage, asking questions and gathering context, rather than making commitments or pitching terms.<\/p>\n
Outreach without a follow-through system is just activity. The conversations that produce deal flow are the ones that get tracked, followed up on, and moved toward a real meeting. This requires a pipeline, not an inbox.<\/p>\n
The default workflow for most VC firms is: reach out on LinkedIn, get a reply, have a conversation, and then either email or lose the thread. There’s no system between the LinkedIn DM and the CRM entry. Deals fall through that gap every week.<\/p>\n
A working LinkedIn-to-CRM pipeline has four stages:<\/p>\n
The CRM tools that work well for this workflow:<\/p>\n
Tag every LinkedIn lead by sector, stage, and last contact date. Set reminders. A deal that goes cold because the follow-up fell out of someone’s inbox is not a pipeline problem. It’s a process problem.<\/p>\n
The goal of LinkedIn outreach is not to close a deal in the DMs. It’s to get a meeting. The transition from message thread to a real conversation is where most VC LinkedIn outreach stalls, because VCs either over-pitch in the messages (asking for a pitch deck before building any rapport) or under-ask (having a genuinely good exchange but never converting it to a calendar invite).<\/p>\n
The CTA that works for the handoff: offer a specific, low-pressure format. “Happy to hop on a 20-minute call to share what we’re seeing in the [sector] space and hear where you are with the company” is better than “I’d love to learn more.” The first version is concrete (20 minutes), mutual (you’re sharing something too), and low-stakes (not a pitch evaluation, just a conversation). The second version puts all the pressure on the founder to define what “learning more” looks like.<\/p>\n
When you ask for the meeting, include two or three specific time options or a calendar link. Forcing the founder to propose a time adds friction. Removing that friction is a small thing that has a measurable effect on conversion.<\/p>\n
A founder who replied once, seemed interested, and then stopped responding is the most common outcome in LinkedIn deal sourcing. This is not the same as a founder who was never interested. It’s a timing issue in most cases. The outreach happened, but the follow-up didn’t.<\/p>\n
The re-engagement sequence for warm-but-silent founders:<\/p>\n
The principle behind this cadence: you want to stay on the radar without becoming noise. A founder who hears from you every 15 days with nothing new to say will eventually mark your messages as spam. A founder who hears from you every 10 to 21 days with something specific and relevant will eventually reply when the timing is right.<\/p>\n
LinkedIn deal sourcing is not a hack. It’s a system. The VCs who use it well do so because they’ve built something repeatable: a filtered search that surfaces the right founders, a messaging framework that gets replies, a content presence that warms cold outreach before it lands, and a CRM pipeline that prevents conversations from falling through the gaps.<\/p>\n
The one thing that separates consistent deal flow from occasional lucky outreach is discipline in the follow-up. Most LinkedIn conversations with founders that eventually lead to investments were not closed in the first message. They were built over three to five touchpoints, with specific references to what the founder was building at each stage. That requires a system that tracks every conversation and prompts the next action on the right timeline.<\/p>\n
If your LinkedIn outreach currently looks like sporadic connection requests and an inbox you check occasionally, the first step is to build the search infrastructure: set up the Sales Navigator filters, save your leads, and set up alerts. Get the list right before you touch the messaging. Once the targeting is clean, everything else gets easier because you’re writing to people who actually fit your thesis, not hoping that someone in a big list turns out to be relevant.<\/p>\n
LinkedIn outreach for venture capital firms is the practice of using LinkedIn’s platform, search tools, and messaging features to proactively find and contact startup founders, build deal flow pipelines, and initiate investment conversations before those founders begin a formal fundraising process. It uses both organic search through Sales Navigator and content-led inbound strategies to build a systematic sourcing channel.<\/p>\n
Sales Navigator lets VC firms filter LinkedIn’s entire member base by job title, company headcount, industry, geography, and behavioral signals like recent activity and job changes. VCs build saved searches for founders matching their investment thesis, set up lead alerts to track when those founders show fundraising signals, and use TeamLink to identify warm introduction paths through their existing network. According to Niumatrix’s 2026 Sales Navigator guide, leads with active engagement signals convert 3 to 4 times faster than dormant profiles.<\/p>\n
The most effective VC outreach messages lead with the investment thesis (specific sector and stage focus), then explain why that particular founder’s company fits that thesis, then offer mutual value (a perspective on their market or an intro to a portfolio company), and end with a single low-friction CTA like a 20-minute call. The message should be four to six sentences. Referencing a specific product launch or post the founder wrote recently increases reply rates significantly compared to generic messages.<\/p>\n
Targeted LinkedIn connection requests with a personalized note see a 30 to 40% acceptance rate when the targeting is tight and the message is relevant to the recipient, according to data from Qubit Capital’s research on LinkedIn outreach benchmarks. Generic connection requests with no message or a generic note perform at much lower rates. The acceptance rate is a function of how accurately the founder ICP is defined, not just the quality of the message.<\/p>\n
Selective automation is appropriate for VCs. The safe layer includes controlling connection request volume to stay within LinkedIn’s daily limits (under 20 to 25 per day per account), setting up saved search alerts, and syncing lead data to a CRM. The parts that must stay human are the personalized first message, any response to a founder reply, and all follow-up after a meeting. Mass automated messaging that doesn’t account for replies creates reputational risk in tight founder communities that VC firms rely on for deal flow.<\/p>\n
Connection requests are free and, when accepted, give unlimited direct message access. They work best for founders with smaller networks and active posting behavior. InMail sends a message to any LinkedIn user without requiring an accepted connection first, and is included in Sales Navigator plans (50 credits per month on Core). InMail is best used for high-profile founders with large audiences who are unlikely to accept a cold connection request, because it bypasses the connection step. A weak InMail to a prominent founder is worse than not reaching out at all, since it consumes a credit and leaves a poor impression.<\/p>\n
VCs generate inbound deal flow on LinkedIn by posting specific investment thesis content, portfolio company spotlights, and original sector analysis three to four times per week. Founders who encounter this content multiple times before receiving a connection request from the VC treat the outreach as a warm message rather than a cold one. The mechanism is recognition: a founder who knows your thesis and has seen your take on their market is already primed to engage before the first message arrives.<\/p>\n
Affinity is built specifically for relationship-driven deal sourcing and integrates directly with LinkedIn to log interactions and surface network intelligence. HubSpot and Salesforce integrate with Sales Navigator’s Advanced Plus plan to sync leads automatically. Smaller funds often use Notion-based deal trackers with custom databases that mirror a four-stage pipeline from identified to meeting booked. The specific tool matters less than having a consistent tagging system, follow-up reminders, and a clear definition of what moves a lead from one stage to the next.<\/p>\n
The most reliable approach is to combine Sales Navigator boolean search (filtering by founder title, company headcount of 1 to 50 employees, specific sector keywords, and the Spotlight filter for “Posted in last 30 days”) with behavioral signal tracking. Founders who are in rapid hiring mode, posting about product milestones, or whose co-founders are showing title changes are typically three to nine months from beginning a formal raise. Cross-referencing with Crunchbase to identify companies whose last funding round was 12 to 18 months ago narrows the list further to founders who are likely approaching their next round.<\/p>\n
The most common mistakes include: pitching in the first message before any relationship exists, using fund marketing language that sounds identical to every other investor message, failing to follow up after a connection is accepted, running outreach from junior team accounts instead of the partners who will actually be in the meeting, sending the same template to both pre-seed and Series B founders, and ignoring the founder’s public LinkedIn activity as a free personalization opportunity. Each of these is fixable with a clear template, a tiered approach by stage, and a CRM system that ensures follow-ups actually happen on schedule.<\/p>\n
The goal and the stakes are different. B2B sales outreach is trying to generate a pipeline of potential buyers. VC outreach is trying to build relationships with founders who have optionality about which investors they work with. A founder who feels like they received a mass automated pitch from a VC will choose a different investor, and will likely tell other founders in their network. The reputational cost of poor LinkedIn outreach is higher for VCs than for sales teams because the audience is smaller, more interconnected, and the decision they make (who gets to invest in their company) is deeply personal. VC LinkedIn outreach needs to feel like a conversation between two people with a shared interest in building something, not a sales funnel.<\/p>\n
LinkedIn enforces weekly connection request limits rather than daily ones, but the practical safe limit is 20 to 25 connection requests per day per account to stay well within the threshold that triggers account review. This data comes from Expandi’s 2026 LinkedIn usage guide, which tracks platform behavior across thousands of active outreach accounts. Automated tools that send requests at a human-like pace and stay within these daily limits maintain account health. Sending 100 or more requests in a single day is the most common trigger for temporary outreach restrictions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Most venture capital firms still source the majority of their deals the same way they did twenty years ago: warm […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1146,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-guides"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1139"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1147,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1139\/revisions\/1147"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1146"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dealsflow.co\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}