Last updated:
Author
Hongji Feng
Author
Hongji Feng
Share
Why Trust Cryptonews
Ad Disclosure
We believe in full transparency with our readers. Some of our content includes affiliate links, and we may earn a commission through these partnerships.
Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), is aiding Elon Musk in recruiting for the Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE), a cost-cutting advisory body co-chaired by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, as reported by the Financial Times on Thursday.
Andreessen is leveraging his network to find qualified candidates for the initiative under the incoming Trump administration.
Two people familiar with the talent search, despite Andreessen having no formal role at DOGE, revealed that Andreessen is actively recommending candidates from his network.
The report indicated that Andreessen’s involvement in the recruitment process reflects his existing ties with Elon Musk.
The DOGE advisory body has also publicly sought applicants through a post on its official X account, calling for “super high-IQ small-government people” willing to work on cost-cutting initiatives.
Trump, Tech, and the Influence of Andreessen
Andreessen’s influence on Trump’s policy decisions has also been noted.
In a recent announcement, Trump criticized major tech companies, writing: “Big Tech has run wild for years, stifling competition in the tech sector and, as we all know, using its market power to crack down on the rights of so many Americans, as well as those of Little Tech!”
The term “Little Tech,” referring to start-ups, has been popularized by Marc Andreessen.
Andreessen Horowitz declared in July that its “political efforts as a firm are entirely focused on defending Little Tech.”
Financial Times Recants on Bitcoin Coverage
In other Financial Times coverage, the publication addressed its past reporting on Bitcoin following the cryptocurrency’s price surpassing $100,000.
FT Alphaville, a Financial Times column, revisited its previously critical stance on Bitcoin, which it had described as a “negative-sum game” with limited practical utility.
The column’s authors offered a qualified apology, stating, “We’re sorry if at any moment in the past 14 years you chose based on our coverage not to buy a thing whose number has gone up.”
