{"id":3491803,"date":"2026-09-13T21:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-13T21:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/2026\/09\/13\/insight-partners-devin-parekh-discusses-the-reasons-behind-the-firms-decision-to-diversify-when-others-focus-solely-on-openai-and-anthropic\/"},"modified":"2026-09-13T21:30:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-13T21:30:00","slug":"insight-partners-devin-parekh-discusses-the-reasons-behind-the-firms-decision-to-diversify-when-others-focus-solely-on-openai-and-anthropic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/2026\/09\/13\/insight-partners-devin-parekh-discusses-the-reasons-behind-the-firms-decision-to-diversify-when-others-focus-solely-on-openai-and-anthropic\/","title":{"rendered":"Insight Partners\u2019 Devin Parekh discusses the reasons behind the firm’s decision to diversify when others focus solely on OpenAI and Anthropic."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n

Devin Parekh has co-managed the prominent investment firm Insight Partners for 26 years. In contrast to many VCs who are vocal on X and appear to thrive on podcasts, Parekh and Insight Partners prefer to maintain a lower profile.<\/p>\n

During his discussion with TechCrunch at its StrictlyVC event on Thursday evening in New York, Parekh was notably forthright about some of the firm\u2019s successes (it has led and co-led numerous funding rounds in Databricks, for instance, and holds shares in OpenAI and Anthropic); the deals it has missed out on, including the buzzworthy AI legal-tech firm Legora; conflicts of interest within venture investing; and why Insight has adhered to a diversified strategy while other VCs have concentrated on leading AI labs.<\/p>\n

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a researcher who\u2019s made headlines this week \u2014 do you perceive concerns regarding AI risks as hysteria, or do you harbor genuine worries?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of course, there\u2019s a risk that some non-state entity could access an open-source model and develop a biological weapon. However, there\u2019s an even greater likelihood that we will see a significant reduction in the time required to develop new medications and cure illnesses. I\u2019d take that gamble.<\/p>\n

I serve on the board of NYU Langone \u2014 what AI is currently doing with patient data is astonishing. We can analyze 50 million patient records and inform someone arriving for an unrelated issue that they have a 25% chance of experiencing a heart attack. Overall, I view this as highly beneficial.<\/p>\n

There are certainly risks, much like the risks associated with cutting-edge drone warfare. Every generation faces new risks, yet somehow, over time, living standards still rise. We will require AI to enhance healthcare accessibility as the population ages and the number of medical professionals available declines.<\/p>\n

Insight has $90 billion in assets under management but appears relatively subdued compared to similarly sized firms. Is this intentional?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Every venture capitalist seems to believe they are an authority on everything nowadays \u2014 epidemiology during COVID, geopolitics amid the Iran conflict. I\u2019m not convinced we are all experts in every domain. Our philosophy has been: Let the portfolio speak for itself. We invest in founders and companies. We need to communicate sufficiently for people to know who we are, but our performance should speak for itself \u2014 and this is driven by the portfolio, not by our need to be vociferous.<\/p>\n

You engage in early-stage, growth, buyouts, and presumably secondaries. What\u2019s the allocation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s time-based, not set in stone \u2014 we invest globally, so there is no fixed geographic or strategic allocation. Examining our last seven funds would reveal varying proportions of early-stage, growth, and buyout in each. Currently, buyouts are not favorable \u2014 interest rates are high, debt markets are not welcoming for software, and exit multiples have decreased. We haven\u2019t executed a significant buyout since 2024.<\/p>\n

On the venture side, valuations are climbing at a rate we witnessed previously in 2021 \u2014 and that did not end well. Ordinarily, a follow-on round signifies more data, so you pay a premium for reduced risk. Presently, rounds are moving so swiftly that there\u2019s nearly no incremental data, resulting in higher payments without a corresponding reduction in risk. The sensible reaction is to invest earlier. With a scalable fund, you can make smaller investments \u2014 writing a $20\u201325 million check instead of $500 million \u2014 and increase your stake in the successful ventures. That\u2019s where we have seen disproportionate returns. With Wiz, we wrote a Series A and continued to invest, leading to a much larger gain than if we had stopped at the initial check. And if Wiz hadn\u2019t succeeded, it would hardly have impacted a fund our size.<\/p>\n

As a global investor, what proportion of your deals are regional versus focused in areas like the Bay Area?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Talent has leveled out worldwide. We pursued Legora \u2014 my partner Jeff Horing traveled to [Stockholm] to present to the company, since that\u2019s where the founder was based. We lost that one to General Catalyst.<\/p>\n

That said, AI infrastructure talent is genuinely concentrated in San Francisco \u2014 my 23-year-old son, also a VC, is relocating there because he believes you cannot invest in AI without being present. However, talent density differs by sector: Ramp is in financial services, and that talent is centered in New York. Thus, sector-specific AI investments can be more geographically diverse than pure AI infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Why did you lose Legora to General Catalyst?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I can\u2019t pinpoint the exact reason, but I believe they presented their value proposition more effectively than we did at that time. There are many instances where the reverse has occurred. The world is vast; we don\u2019t have to secure every deal.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re invested in competing firms \u2014 OpenAI and Anthropic. That used to be considered taboo in VC. Did this cause any internal conflict within the firm? Were you concerned about how founders would perceive this?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The internal discussion was more focused on whether we should have participated in earlier funding rounds. It\u2019s very much dependent on the stage. Khosla led OpenAI\u2019s Series A, and there\u2019s no way they could have subsequently invested in Anthropic, and if we had funded Anthropic\u2019s Series A, we likely could not have invested in OpenAI either. Once you\u2019re at a later stage, off the board, and not influencing governance, you\u2019re merely acquiring a great stock.<\/p>\n

We viewed OpenAI as the leading consumer-focused entity and Anthropic as having a distinct enterprise approach; that dynamic is evolving in real-time. As these companies sought to raise $30\u2013$100 billion, they lost the ability to dictate exclusivity. However, at the Series A\/B stage, we do have information-sharing constraints and do not invest in companies that directly compete, although some founders are sensitive even to slight revenue overlap.<\/p>\n

Are you becoming more aggressive concerning physical AI?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Companies focused on physical intelligence remain largely theoretical endeavors. It\u2019s not that they won\u2019t evolve into viable businesses, but you\u2019re betting on when robotics adoption occurs, which is in addition to a bet on whether it happens at all. We\u2019re observing, but we have yet to engage. My son believes it\u2019s the most exciting area right now and thinks I\u2019m misguided to overlook it, which is exactly what I would anticipate from a 23-year-old.<\/p>\n

OpenAI and Anthropic garnered roughly half of all VC investment in the first half of this year. Do you think LPs are apprehensive about concentration risk?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019re not significantly concentrated, so it\u2019s not a concern for us. However, I\u2019m an LP in other funds, and I\u2019m aware of two funds right now \u2014 raising their entire fund in a month \u2014 whose proposition is literally \u201c35\u201340% of this fund is going into one of those two companies.\u201d I\u2019m not suggesting OpenAI and Anthropic won\u2019t perform well. Yet this industry has consistently favored diversification over the long term. We\u2019re on fund 13, so we must think in terms of ten funds, not just one.<\/p>\n

At this specific time, if 25% of our fund were in Anthropic, our returns could look superior. However, historical data does not support excessive concentration, and the majority of LPs prefer to avoid that exposure \u2014 although firms such as Founders Fund and Thrive have succeeded with concentrated strategies. There will always be exceptions who excel at that.<\/p>\n

Secondaries are appealing at the moment, considering the amount of capital raised between 2021 and 2023. How are you approaching these?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The more significant issue is that numerous funds gathered substantial capital and have yet to return any to LPs. Many first- and second-time funds might not secure a subsequent fund because they failed to prioritize liquidity. I advise the fund managers I mentor: If Anthropic is poised to triple from here, that\u2019s fine \u2014 take your basis out regardless. LPs want to see you can liquidate positions; that\u2019s the job.<\/p>\n

We were also guilty of this early on. As one of the largest LPs in most of our own funds, we would think, \u201cWhy sell if it could appreciate further?\u201d However, LPs aren\u2019t compensated that way. Over the past two years, we\u2019ve returned over $20 billion to LPs through strategic sales and IPOs, with a few billion more anticipated. DPI is significant, even at fund 13. Secondaries really serve as a liquidity tool, often for early venture investors rather than employees. Nobody complains about a 10x that remains a 10x, but if it dips to 5x, people question why you didn\u2019t exit.<\/p>\n

VC<\/strong> Elad Gill has contended there exists a narrow window \u2014 perhaps 6 to 12 months \u2014 where a company\u2019s valuation will never be higher, and founders should capitalize on it. Do you discuss this with your founders?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We consistently engage in that conversation, although founders heed my advice about as much as my children do. It\u2019s an individual basis, but when a founder receives an offer at a high valuation, I ask them what happens when the market corrections occur, since they inevitably will, even if I can\u2019t specify when. If I could predict it, I\u2019d be on an island managing my investments, not speaking with you. You don\u2019t need to liquidate everything; mitigating risk by 10 or 20% is prudent.<\/p>\n

Currently, valuations are increasing so rapidly that people assume the trend will persist, but you cannot compound $40 billion at 50% every two months for two years without being the global economy. That calculation doesn\u2019t make sense.<\/p>\n

Anthropic is expected to file for IPO shortly, presumably with OpenAI following. What does that IPO signify for the industry?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anthropic is already larger than Salesforce and it\u2019s only four years old \u2014 their ability to go public doesn\u2019t necessarily imply much for others in the market. You\u2019ll see three companies \u2014 SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI \u2014 going public within six to eight months, each exceeding a trillion dollars in market capitalization, and the market absorbed SpaceX quite comfortably. The essential inquiry is when the next tier of firms will go public and what standard that establishes. If you\u2019re an investor observing a company\u2019s growth from zero to $65 billion in four years, \u201cdouble, double, triple, triple\u201d doesn\u2019t seem as thrilling in comparison. However, that 10x growth rate cannot persist indefinitely. Eventually, even these firms will operate as normal-growth entities, and you will require public markets for that. I believe we will see an uptick in these IPOs over the next 18 months.<\/p>\n

With so much capital encumbered, will this influx of LP money finally returning sustain the excitement?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We all relate to this in our personal lives \u2014 steering clear of an overpriced market until we reach a breaking point, only to dive in right when we should be exercising restraint. LPs operate similarly on a broader scale; everyone sought entrance before 2021, retracted afterwards, and now the same LPs are rushing back in. That boom-bust cycle is challenging to evade. Venture-growth funds ranging from $6 to $10 billion used to be rare; now they are commonplace.<\/p>\n

How long do you allow a company with a flawed capital structure before deciding to double down or withdraw?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It varies significantly. Wonderful [an enterprise AI agent platform] was established under two years ago; we engaged in two funding rounds and it\u2019s now valued at $5 billion \u2014 a remarkably swift double-down. Conversely, some investments from 2021 stagnated for three or four years before discovering product-market fit. That illustrates why we conduct portfolio evaluations \u2014 we recently assessed 300 portfolio companies over three days, monitoring not just the primary positions but also identifying those demonstrating inflection points worth committing further resources to, acquiring secondaries, or, in some cases, pulling back from.<\/p>\n

Our prime example is Armis, a security firm. We initially lost the deal to Sequoia, but my partner maintained the relationship with a $5 million investment from an $11 billion fund. Eighteen months later, we acquired the entire cap structure, including Sequoia, for a nine-figure investment, and sold it to ServiceNow this year for $7 billion. At times, smaller investments yield profits, at other times, larger ones do. The goal remains identifying the best founders within the best markets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

When you buy through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn\u2019t influence our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<\/div>\n
\n

Devin Parekh has co-managed the prominent investment firm Insight Partners for 26 years. In contrast to many VCs who are vocal on X and appear to thrive on podcasts, Parekh and Insight Partners prefer to maintain a lower profile.<\/p>\n

During his discussion with TechCrunch at its StrictlyVC event on Thursday evening in New York, Parekh was notably forthright about some of the firm\u2019s successes (it has led and co-led numerous funding rounds in Databricks, for instance, and holds shares in OpenAI and Anthropic); the deals it has missed out on, including the buzzworthy AI legal-tech firm Legora; conflicts of interest within venture investing; and why Insight has adhered to a diversified strategy while other VCs have concentrated on leading AI labs.<\/p>\n

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a researcher who\u2019s made headlines this week \u2014 do you perceive concerns regarding AI risks as hysteria, or do you harbor genuine worries?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of course, there\u2019s a risk that some non-state entity could access an open-source model and develop a biological weapon. However, there\u2019s an even greater likelihood that we will see a significant reduction in the time required to develop new medications and cure illnesses. I\u2019d take that gamble.<\/p>\n

I serve on the board of NYU Langone \u2014 what AI is currently doing with patient data is astonishing. We can analyze 50 million patient records and inform someone arriving for an unrelated issue that they have a 25% chance of experiencing a heart attack. Overall, I view this as highly beneficial.<\/p>\n

There are certainly risks, much like the risks associated with cutting-edge drone warfare. Every generation faces new risks, yet somehow, over time, living standards still rise. We will require AI to enhance healthcare accessibility as the population ages and the number of medical professionals available declines.<\/p>\n

Insight has $90 billion in assets under management but appears relatively subdued compared to similarly sized firms. Is this intentional?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Every venture capitalist seems to believe they are an authority on everything nowadays \u2014 epidemiology during COVID, geopolitics amid the Iran conflict. I\u2019m not convinced we are all experts in every domain. Our philosophy has been: Let the portfolio speak for itself. We invest in founders and companies. We need to communicate sufficiently for people to know who we are, but our performance should speak for itself \u2014 and this is driven by the portfolio, not by our need to be vociferous.<\/p>\n

You engage in early-stage, growth, buyouts, and presumably secondaries. What\u2019s the allocation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s time-based, not set in stone \u2014 we invest globally, so there is no fixed geographic or strategic allocation. Examining our last seven funds would reveal varying proportions of early-stage, growth, and buyout in each. Currently, buyouts are not favorable \u2014 interest rates are high, debt markets are not welcoming for software, and exit multiples have decreased. We haven\u2019t executed a significant buyout since 2024.<\/p>\n

On the venture side, valuations are climbing at a rate we witnessed previously in 2021 \u2014 and that did not end well. Ordinarily, a follow-on round signifies more data, so you pay a premium for reduced risk. Presently, rounds are moving so swiftly that there\u2019s nearly no incremental data, resulting in higher payments without a corresponding reduction in risk. The sensible reaction is to invest earlier. With a scalable fund, you can make smaller investments \u2014 writing a $20\u201325 million check instead of $500 million \u2014 and increase your stake in the successful ventures. That\u2019s where we have seen disproportionate returns. With Wiz, we wrote a Series A and continued to invest, leading to a much larger gain than if we had stopped at the initial check. And if Wiz hadn\u2019t succeeded, it would hardly have impacted a fund our size.<\/p>\n

As a global investor, what proportion of your deals are regional versus focused in areas like the Bay Area?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Talent has leveled out worldwide. We pursued Legora \u2014 my partner Jeff Horing traveled to [Stockholm] to present to the company, since that\u2019s where the founder was based. We lost that one to General Catalyst.<\/p>\n

That said, AI infrastructure talent is genuinely concentrated in San Francisco \u2014 my 23-year-old son, also a VC, is relocating there because he believes you cannot invest in AI without being present. However, talent density differs by sector: Ramp is in financial services, and that talent is centered in New York. Thus, sector-specific AI investments can be more geographically diverse than pure AI infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Why did you lose Legora to General Catalyst?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I can\u2019t pinpoint the exact reason, but I believe they presented their value proposition more effectively than we did at that time. There are many instances where the reverse has occurred. The world is vast; we don\u2019t have to secure every deal.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re invested in competing firms \u2014 OpenAI and Anthropic. That used to be considered taboo in VC. Did this cause any internal conflict within the firm? Were you concerned about how founders would perceive this?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The internal discussion was more focused on whether we should have participated in earlier funding rounds. It\u2019s very much dependent on the stage. Khosla led OpenAI\u2019s Series A, and there\u2019s no way they could have subsequently invested in Anthropic, and if we had funded Anthropic\u2019s Series A, we likely could not have invested in OpenAI either. Once you\u2019re at a later stage, off the board, and not influencing governance, you\u2019re merely acquiring a great stock.<\/p>\n

We viewed OpenAI as the leading consumer-focused entity and Anthropic as having a distinct enterprise approach; that dynamic is evolving in real-time. As these companies sought to raise $30\u2013$100 billion, they lost the ability to dictate exclusivity. However, at the Series A\/B stage, we do have information-sharing constraints and do not invest in companies that directly compete, although some founders are sensitive even to slight revenue overlap.<\/p>\n

Are you becoming more aggressive concerning physical AI?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Companies focused on physical intelligence remain largely theoretical endeavors. It\u2019s not that they won\u2019t evolve into viable businesses, but you\u2019re betting on when robotics adoption occurs, which is in addition to a bet on whether it happens at all. We\u2019re observing, but we have yet to engage. My son believes it\u2019s the most exciting area right now and thinks I\u2019m misguided to overlook it, which is exactly what I would anticipate from a 23-year-old.<\/p>\n

OpenAI and Anthropic garnered roughly half of all VC investment in the first half of this year. Do you think LPs are apprehensive about concentration risk?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019re not significantly concentrated, so it\u2019s not a concern for us. However, I\u2019m an LP in other funds, and I\u2019m aware of two funds right now \u2014 raising their entire fund in a month \u2014 whose proposition is literally \u201c35\u201340% of this fund is going into one of those two companies.\u201d I\u2019m not suggesting OpenAI and Anthropic won\u2019t perform well. Yet this industry has consistently favored diversification over the long term. We\u2019re on fund 13, so we must think in terms of ten funds, not just one.<\/p>\n

At this specific time, if 25% of our fund were in Anthropic, our returns could look superior. However, historical data does not support excessive concentration, and the majority of LPs prefer to avoid that exposure \u2014 although firms such as Founders Fund and Thrive have succeeded with concentrated strategies. There will always be exceptions who excel at that.<\/p>\n

Secondaries are appealing at the moment, considering the amount of capital raised between 2021 and 2023. How are you approaching these?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The more significant issue is that numerous funds gathered substantial capital and have yet to return any to LPs. Many first- and second-time funds might not secure a subsequent fund because they failed to prioritize liquidity. I advise the fund managers I mentor: If Anthropic is poised to triple from here, that\u2019s fine \u2014 take your basis out regardless. LPs want to see you can liquidate positions; that\u2019s the job.<\/p>\n

We were also guilty of this early on. As one of the largest LPs in most of our own funds, we would think, \u201cWhy sell if it could appreciate further?\u201d However, LPs aren\u2019t compensated that way. Over the past two years, we\u2019ve returned over $20 billion to LPs through strategic sales and IPOs, with a few billion more anticipated. DPI is significant, even at fund 13. Secondaries really serve as a liquidity tool, often for early venture investors rather than employees. Nobody complains about a 10x that remains a 10x, but if it dips to 5x, people question why you didn\u2019t exit.<\/p>\n

VC<\/strong> Elad Gill has contended there exists a narrow window \u2014 perhaps 6 to 12 months \u2014 where a company\u2019s valuation will never be higher, and founders should capitalize on it. Do you discuss this with your founders?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We consistently engage in that conversation, although founders heed my advice about as much as my children do. It\u2019s an individual basis, but when a founder receives an offer at a high valuation, I ask them what happens when the market corrections occur, since they inevitably will, even if I can\u2019t specify when. If I could predict it, I\u2019d be on an island managing my investments, not speaking with you. You don\u2019t need to liquidate everything; mitigating risk by 10 or 20% is prudent.<\/p>\n

Currently, valuations are increasing so rapidly that people assume the trend will persist, but you cannot compound $40 billion at 50% every two months for two years without being the global economy. That calculation doesn\u2019t make sense.<\/p>\n

Anthropic is expected to file for IPO shortly, presumably with OpenAI following. What does that IPO signify for the industry?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anthropic is already larger than Salesforce and it\u2019s only four years old \u2014 their ability to go public doesn\u2019t necessarily imply much for others in the market. You\u2019ll see three companies \u2014 SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI \u2014 going public within six to eight months, each exceeding a trillion dollars in market capitalization, and the market absorbed SpaceX quite comfortably. The essential inquiry is when the next tier of firms will go public and what standard that establishes. If you\u2019re an investor observing a company\u2019s growth from zero to $65 billion in four years, \u201cdouble, double, triple, triple\u201d doesn\u2019t seem as thrilling in comparison. However, that 10x growth rate cannot persist indefinitely. Eventually, even these firms will operate as normal-growth entities, and you will require public markets for that. I believe we will see an uptick in these IPOs over the next 18 months.<\/p>\n

With so much capital encumbered, will this influx of LP money finally returning sustain the excitement?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We all relate to this in our personal lives \u2014 steering clear of an overpriced market until we reach a breaking point, only to dive in right when we should be exercising restraint. LPs operate similarly on a broader scale; everyone sought entrance before 2021, retracted afterwards, and now the same LPs are rushing back in. That boom-bust cycle is challenging to evade. Venture-growth funds ranging from $6 to $10 billion used to be rare; now they are commonplace.<\/p>\n

How long do you allow a company with a flawed capital structure before deciding to double down or withdraw?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It varies significantly. Wonderful [an enterprise AI agent platform] was established under two years ago; we engaged in two funding rounds and it\u2019s now valued at $5 billion \u2014 a remarkably swift double-down. Conversely, some investments from 2021 stagnated for three or four years before discovering product-market fit. That illustrates why we conduct portfolio evaluations \u2014 we recently assessed 300 portfolio companies over three days, monitoring not just the primary positions but also identifying those demonstrating inflection points worth committing further resources to, acquiring secondaries, or, in some cases, pulling back from.<\/p>\n

Our prime example is Armis, a security firm. We initially lost the deal to Sequoia, but my partner maintained the relationship with a $5 million investment from an $11 billion fund. Eighteen months later, we acquired the entire cap structure, including Sequoia, for a nine-figure investment, and sold it to ServiceNow this year for $7 billion. At times, smaller investments yield profits, at other times, larger ones do. The goal remains identifying the best founders within the best markets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

When you buy through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn\u2019t influence our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3491804,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3491803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3491803"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3491803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3491803\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3491804"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3491803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3491803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/techingeek.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3491803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}