> Don't forget Sequoia Capital now too, after the SBF fiasco
Single fiascos rarely tank brands.
Sequoia still has a braintrust that makes it profitable to associate with. Andreessen is increasingly a refuge for those who have no other choice, are in on the grift or are being grifted.
> Sequoia still has a braintrust that makes it profitable to associate with.
That's why this single fiasco is so damaging: the braintrust has proven to be a farcical joke. The guy was playing video games while on their funding calls and they called it "genius." Zero due diligence, just brown nosing.
> why this single fiasco is so damaging: the braintrust has proven to be a farcical joke. The guy was playing video games while on their funding calls and they called it "genius."
Sequoia balance their SBFs with solid, profitable bets. That means they can keep raising funds, keep paying out carry, and through both of those maintain staying power. I don't love reducing this to economics, but at the end of the day if you can't pay your LPs, you can't pay your GPs, and when you have second-rate GPs you're going to wind up with second-rate founders. Sequoia brings home the bacon. Andreessen lives on management fees.
> Sequoia balance their SBFs with solid, profitable bets.
SBF was such a bad bet with so little due diligence that I don't think this is going to be true going forward and probably hasn't been for a while. They were running on zero interest rates and brand momentum so let's see how much money their next fund returns.
> were running on zero interest rates and brand momentum so let's see how much money their next fund returns
"Let's see" means they're still in the game. Anyone might stumble in the future. The difference between Sequoia and a16z is Sequoia might stumble, a16z already has.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221109050305/https://www.sequo...