Sequoia Kills Its Scout Program After 17 Years — and Rivals May Follow

Sequoia announced this week that it is shutting down its scout program and closing its London office, ending a 17-year-old model it pioneered and that much of the venture industry copied.

The firm framed the move as part of a broad overhaul, laid out in a memo posted to X. The memo didn't argue against scouting itself. Instead, Sequoia said it wants to put "more energy behind fewer people and things." Observers read the two cuts differently: the London closure says little, they say, given the British capital's thriving AI scene. The end of the scouts program says a lot about where venture investing is headed.

The takeaway: the firm that invented scout checks has decided the format no longer earns its keep in its current form.

What was the scout model, and why did it matter?

Sequoia pioneered scouts 17 years ago. The idea is simple: select founders and operators write checks on the firm's behalf, extending Sequoia's reach into deals it might otherwise miss. As competition for deal flow intensified, many VC firms copied the format.

Now a consensus is emerging that the model has hit its limits. Even the copycats are rethinking it rather than expanding it.

Why are skeptics saying the model stopped working?

Not everyone was sold on scouts in the first place. VC Sheel Mohnot wrote on X this week: "They pioneered the scout program but [to be honest] it never made sense to me!"

He laid out the core critique in the same post. "The scouts themselves don't really care that much about the investments, you can still miss (like they did with Uber), not sure what it gets you. I suspect other firms will shutter theirs too."

That Uber detail stings. A program built to catch breakout companies still missed one of the biggest of them all, and Sequoia's own memo points toward concentration over coverage.

How are rivals like a16z changing their programs?

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) built a global scout network aimed at spotting opportunities in the U.S. and in smaller European hubs. Earlier this year, a16z partner Gabriel Vasquez told TechCrunch the firm had revamped its program to double down "on the best people."

The trade is explicit: more resources for fewer scouts, with higher expectations attached. Scouts now co-host dinners with the firm, among other duties. "They get more budget, but we have reduced the number," Vasquez said.

That shift suggests VC firms, not founders, are driving the overhaul. The economics that made spray-and-pray scouting attractive to firms have weakened, and the big names are choosing depth over breadth.

What did scouting do for the people in it?

For founders, being a scout was attractive in ways that had little to do with returns. It brought them closer to firms they might want checks from someday, or even a partner role with. Being seen as someone who can write a check also raised their standing among other founders.

Station F boss Roxanne Varza, a Sequoia scout from 2020 to 2025, wrote on LinkedIn that she was "sad" to hear the program was being cut and "hope[d] that other funds [w]on't follow suit."

Varza told TechCrunch she had no information beyond what was shared publicly. But she noted that scouting had often served as a stepping stone for aspiring investment managers.

"I cannot name all of the incredible scouts that have gone on to join or build funds, but there are quite a few," she wrote to TechCrunch. "And the scout programs may have helped them get there — allowed them to build an investment track record, allowed them to build relationships with various funds directly, and more."

She argued the impact went beyond individuals. "I believe they have helped to foster the investment culture and early-stage investment landscape that we now see in Europe, for example," Varza said.

Why did the model run its course?

Two structural reasons explain the retreat, and neither requires scouts to have failed at their job.

First, seasoned operators can get more financial upside as angels. When it's their own money, they keep the returns too — a straightforward incentive to invest independently rather than on a fund's behalf.

Second, the leading VC firms are now big and well-known enough that the best founders tend to come to them directly. They worry less about missing deals, except at the very earliest stages or in niches and geographies where they have less reach.

That logic explains why Sequoia can cut scouts while a16z tightens its own network rather than scrapping it. The mega-firms don't need wide nets anymore; they need targeted ones.

Will venture partner-style deals disappear entirely?

Probably not. The pull of those early and niche deals is exactly why scout programs are more likely to get revamped than to vanish.

"While Sequoia may be cutting the program, venture partner-style deals are likely to continue," Varza said in her email to TechCrunch. "Scouts was just a way to scale the format. I don't imagine Sequoia would end all forms of venture partners, but they are full of surprises."

Mohnot's prediction — that other firms will shutter their programs too — may still come true in part. But the likelier outcome is what a16z already shows: fewer scouts, more budget, more engagement. The format scales down; it doesn't die.

For the broader market, the signal is that venture's reach-for-everything era is fading at the very top. The firms with the strongest brands are betting that founders will find them, and that a small circle of committed partners beats a wide scatter of indifferent checks.