Sequoia certainly hasn't had that effect on YC companies. Nearly every founder I've talked to on the subject has said that when they met with Sequoia, they received good questions and advice about how to build a really big company.

There's a common cause for both the Sequoia LP investment and rising hype about YC: both are because YC companies are doing better and better. It certainly is true that hype, PR, and fundraising can be big distractions for early startups, but all the YC partners go to great lengths to make founders focus on the more important things.

It's good to hear from YC founders that they don't see the negative impacts.

I can certainly understand why the hype machine is, at least in the short term, valuable to both Sequoia and YC. It helps raise the profile of YC and causes valuations to rise for all involved companies. Both Sequoia and YC are in the business of making money after all.

But when you have a situation of "frenzied investors" and these "exclusive limited events" designed somewhat to cause a situation of artificial scarcity, the waters get a bit muddy regarding the motivation of connecting companies with investors. It's the difference between having genuinely valuable partnerships, and those quick liquidity events designed to make a quick buck.

The original mission of YC involved developing companies that build things that people want. I hope the Sequoia influence doesn't change that.

Having an "in" at Sequoia meant that they made a couple introductions that proved very helpful for us.

I'm sure Sequoia has a laundry list of valuable connections for any YC start up.

I just wonder whether contributing to an atmosphere of "frenzied investors" like the original article alludes to is helping or ultimately could wind up hurting in the long term.