AI News AI资讯 3h ago Updated 2h ago 更新于 2小时前 48

Mercor’s Brendan Foody calls out Sequoia over ‘dual-pricing’ valuation tricks Mercor的Brendan Foody指责红杉资本在估值中使用'双定价'技巧

The Sequoia "scam" isn't just a horror story; it's the dirty secret of modern venture capital laid bare by its own beneficiaries. When Brendan Foody, founder of a $10 billion AI company, publicly names Sequoia and describes a systemic practice, the Silicon Valley veil of sophisticated, founder-friendly partnership starts to shred. What we're seeing is the formalization of a two-tiered valuation system that serves the investor class first, the founder narrative second, and the actual truth not at 创业圈最近弥漫着一股集体呕吐的气息。不是在庆功宴上,而是在X平台的线程里。一众创始人和转行做投资人的创始人,开始连环吐槽被风投机构虐待的往事。从路演时当着你的面睡着,到建议你直接把联合创始人踢出局,剧情之狗血,足以拍一部硅谷版的《黑镜》。但真正把这场吐槽大会推向高潮的,是一颗投向深水区的炸弹:被红杉资本(Sequoia)投资,可能是一种“更高级的骗局”。

70
Hot 热度
75
Quality 质量
60
Impact 影响力

Analysis 深度分析

The Sequoia "scam" isn't just a horror story; it's the dirty secret of modern venture capital laid bare by its own beneficiaries. When Brendan Foody, founder of a $10 billion AI company, publicly names Sequoia and describes a systemic practice, the Silicon Valley veil of sophisticated, founder-friendly partnership starts to shred. What we're seeing is the formalization of a two-tiered valuation system that serves the investor class first, the founder narrative second, and the actual truth not at all.

The mechanics are straightforward but brilliant in their deception. A lead investor like Sequoia commits capital across two tranches in the same funding round. A substantial portion goes in at a low, private valuation. A token amount is then invested at a sky-high, headline-grabbing valuation. The company announces the round based on the latter, manufacturing a "unicorn" or decacorn narrative. Everyone—the media, future employees, subsequent investors—operates on the inflated number. Meanwhile, Sequoia's blended cost basis is dramatically lower, giving them a preferential, almost risk-free position disguised as bullish conviction.

This isn't just financial engineering; it's psychological warfare on the startup ecosystem. It creates a pervasive illusion of value that distorts everything downstream. When Foody says founders "misrepresent this to their employees & then shop it to angels too," he's pointing to the real victims. An employee who joins on the strength of a "$1 billion valuation" and accepts equity in lieu of a higher salary is making a decision based on a lie. Their options are priced against a fiction. The subsequent angel investors pouring money in are buying a narrative, not the underlying economic reality of the company's worth to its lead investor. It's a house of cards where the foundation is intentionally obscured.

The Serval example is a smoking gun. A $1 billion headline valuation is a powerful weapon. It attracts talent, commands press, and pressures competitors. But when the actual lead investment comes in at $400 million—a 60% discount—the "billion-dollar" status is pure theater. It’s not a rounding error; it’s a deliberate strategy of misrepresentation. Sequoia isn't just investing in a company; it's investing in the creation of a public myth that benefits its own portfolio optics while securing itself an unbeatable entry point.

Why would the most elite firm in the world resort to this? The cynical answer is hubris and entitlement. They believe, perhaps correctly, that their brand alone justifies the premium. Their stamp of approval is the value-add. But the more insidious reason is risk mitigation in an era of inflated valuations. By forcing this split, they insulate themselves from the very market froth they help to create. They can publicly celebrate another "unicorn" in their portfolio while privately knowing they bought the company at a price that guarantees them a massive return even in a downturn. It’s heads they win, tails the founder and early employees take the loss.

This practice shatters the foundational myth of the venture capitalist as a courageous, forward-looking partner. It reframes them as sophisticated arbitrageurs of narrative. The relationship ceases to be a true partnership and becomes something closer to a masterstroke of market manipulation. Foody's use of the word "scam" is precise. A scam relies on deception for unfair advantage. What is a two-tranche valuation if not a deliberate deception about a company's true market price to secure an unfair advantage for the investor?

One could argue this is just "how the game is played," a form of creative bookkeeping. But that defense rings hollow. If a public company used such a method to misrepresent its share price to employees or new investors, the SEC would be involved. In private markets, the lack of regulation has allowed this practice to fester, creating a profound asymmetry of information. The VC has perfect data; the founder, employee, and next-round investor are operating on curated fiction.

The real damage is to trust. The founder-VC relationship, at its best, is built on aligned incentives and brutal honesty. This practice is the antithesis of that. It tells founders that the valuation isn't about the company's true worth, but about the firm's need to craft a specific story. It tells employees that their equity is a lottery ticket with undisclosed odds. And it tells the market that "unicorn" status is a marketing exercise, not a financial milestone.

Perhaps the most telling part is the collective silence. If this is as widespread as Foody suggests, why aren't more founders speaking up? The answer is fear. Fear of being blacklisted, of losing future funding, of being labeled "difficult." Sequoia's power isn't just in its capital; it's in its ability to make or break reputations. Foody, coming from a position of strength with a $10 billion company, can afford the risk. Most cannot.

This isn't just a Sequoia problem. It's a symptom of a venture capital industry that has grown so vast and powerful that it can reshape reality itself to suit its portfolio management needs. The "headline valuation" has become a tool of financial engineering, not a reflection of value. It's a public relations instrument wielded by private equity. And until more founders with Foody's leverage break ranks, this brilliant, deceptive scam will continue to be the engine of Silicon Valley's glittering, and increasingly fictional, narrative. The real question isn't why Sequoia does it. It's why we all agree to pretend it's not happening.

创业圈最近弥漫着一股集体呕吐的气息。不是在庆功宴上,而是在X平台的线程里。一众创始人和转行做投资人的创始人,开始连环吐槽被风投机构虐待的往事。从路演时当着你的面睡着,到建议你直接把联合创始人踢出局,剧情之狗血,足以拍一部硅谷版的《黑镜》。但真正把这场吐槽大会推向高潮的,是一颗投向深水区的炸弹:被红杉资本(Sequoia)投资,可能是一种“更高级的骗局”。

说这话的,不是什么怨妇,而是正站在风口上的AI人才平台Mercor的联合创始人Brendan Foody。他们的最新估值刚冲到100亿美元。当一家百亿美元独角兽的创始人公开指控全球最负盛名的VC之一在玩“双轨估值”骗局时,这就不再是牢骚,而是一场精准的狙击。

Foody的指控很具体:在过去的六个月里,他看到了至少半打融资案例,红杉在同一个轮次里投两笔钱。一笔以较低的估值投入真金白银的大头,另一笔则以高得离谱的估值投入象征性的小钱。然后,所有人默契地对外只宣布那个高得吓人的估值。创始人拿着这个数字去给员工画饼,再去忽悠天使投资人接盘。

TechCrunch早就揭露过这种“领先VC”的标准操作。这本质上是一场精心设计的估值魔术。宣布的“头条估值”是一个为市场情绪服务的光鲜气球,而领投方的真实平均成本,却藏在气球底下那个不起眼的压舱石里。差距有多大?看看被点名的案例:AI客服公司Serval宣布获得7500万美元B轮融资,估值10亿美元。但据《华尔街日报》挖掘,红杉在这个轮次中,给出的最低估值入场点仅为4亿美元——还不到公告数字的一半。中间那六亿美元的差价,是留给公众和竞争对手观赏的幻象。

这操作毒辣在哪里?它首先是对创始人的一种“合法欺诈”。创始人明知其中的水分,但为了拿到钱、撑场面,不得不主动加入这场合唱。他们转头就把虚高的估值当作事实,去跟奋斗已久的员工谈期权价值,去跟下一个“接盘侠”谈估值预期。这构建了一个基于谎言的信心链条,而链条的每一环,都可能在未来某个市场下行的时刻,成为勒紧创业公司的绞索。

更深层的毒害在于,它彻底扭曲了风险投资本该有的样子。红杉这类顶级机构,其品牌最大的价值本应是“价值发现”和“信用背书”。市场相信,能被红杉选中,意味着你经历了最严苛的考验。但如今,这种背书正在被“估值游戏”所稀释。当顶级机构的核心玩法从“发现价值”变为“制造估值”,它向整个行业传递的信号极其危险:重要的不是你的公司到底值多少钱,而是你能把故事讲得多圆,能配合演出演得多好。那些埋头苦干、估值合理的公司,在“头条估值”的虚张声势面前,反而成了竞争中的“老实人”,吃尽暗亏。

风投机构当然会为自己辩护。他们会说,这是一种复杂的交易结构,是适应当前激烈竞争环境的创新,是保护基金LP(出资人)利益的理性选择。这些话或许在财务模型上成立,但在人性的天平上却轻如鸿毛。当一个行业的顶尖玩家,其核心竞争力越来越体现在对数字游戏和信息差的娴熟运用上时,这个行业的创新底色就已经褪去了大半。它正在从一个支持梦想家创造未来的勇敢游戏,退化成一个由金融工程师设计的、服务于自身资产负债表的精巧套利游戏。

那些在路演中睡着的VC,或许只是态度问题;而设计并推行“双轨估值”骗局的VC,则是系统性地腐蚀了游戏的根基。当估值成为可以随意揉捏的橡皮泥,当“领先投资者”的角色从护城河变成了魔术师,我们不禁要问:这些管理着巨额资本、被寄予厚望的机构,到底是在投资未来,还是在精心包装一个当下就能兑现的金融产品?

创始人集体上X“炸街”吐槽,表面看是情绪宣泄,实则是行业话语权开始松动的信号。当最顶尖的创始人不再敬畏那些金字招牌,而是选择公开撕开光鲜的外衣,这或许预示着,旧的游戏规则,真的到了该被重新审视的时候了。毕竟,再好的魔术,如果观众提前知道了机关,也就只剩下尴尬的沉默。

Disclaimer: The above content is generated by AI and is for reference only. 免责声明:以上内容由 AI 生成,仅供参考。

融资 融资 伦理 伦理 产品发布 产品发布
Share: 分享到: