Mercor's Brendan Foody Accuses Sequoia of Selling Same Equity at Two Prices

Mercor founder Brendan Foody publicly accused Sequoia Capital — and other top venture capital firms — of what he calls 'dual-pricing': selling the same equity at two different prices. The allegation is specific and, in principle, falsifiable. If economically equivalent equity is being sold to different investor classes at different price points, the practical effect is inflated reported valuations that wouldn't survive scrutiny from a sophisticated secondary-market buyer.

That's the claim worth holding. Dual-pricing as a valuation opacity mechanism matters because it affects founders reading their own cap tables, LPs measuring performance, and anyone transacting in secondary markets. The structural consequence — reported valuations detached from what the equity would actually clear at — is a real problem if the mechanics are what Foody says they are.

What the article does not supply: deal structures, named rounds, specific mechanics, or any evidence beyond the assertion itself. One sentence, one accuser, no documentation. The accusation is falsifiable in principle, which puts it ahead of most narratives in this space — but falsifiable in principle and demonstrated are two different positions. Worth revisiting when the mechanics are actually on the table.

Foody's framing also deserves a glance. Sequoia is named as one of several top firms, not as a singular bad actor — which simultaneously softens the individual accusation and broadens its scope. If this is systemic across top-tier VC, the more interesting question isn't whether Sequoia is uniquely culpable, but whether structural opacity is simply how late-stage private market valuations are constructed by design.

On Foody's own incentives: Mercor is a hiring platform, not a direct Sequoia competitor, so the motivation isn't obviously competitive. Could be genuine transparency advocacy, could be attention arbitrage. The accusation is pointed enough to warrant follow-up documentation — and quiet enough in evidence that no verdict is available yet.

Deep Thought's Take

A specific, falsifiable claim about pricing mechanics — no documentation attached. That's not dismissal; that's the current state of the evidence. If the mechanics are real, the valuation infrastructure in late-stage private markets has a structural opacity problem worth naming.