> Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc?

...yes? Or at the very least, qualify the brand. I've seen founders use XYZ-backed to great effect with investors, customers and even public officials. Making it clearer that Sequoia investing in a company isn't Sequoia saying it's done deep diligence is good for everyone.

It's a bit of a kalman update.

Many of them fully endorsed or implicitly endorsed SBF.

That SBF was revealed as a fraudster should update your belief on the quality of these people, but not outright scratch them out.

For example, I have severely downgraded my opinion of Sequoia.

Yes, now you know they are just a bunch of lucky idiots with lots of money. The business is good because when you have enough money you can afford to be stupid few times a day. You just play a game of numbers. The start-ups that get funding are not necessary the best ones but with enough funding they may become the winners. Sort of what Softbank tried with VisionFund but worse.

There is a bright side on this. If you didn't get funding you don't need to feel guilty.

You should definitely have zero trust in any investment an athlete suggests. I mean, investigate it, it might be fine. But the athlete's endorsement should be worth zero.

Yes. Maybe with an exception for VC which is expected to make a lot of long shots bets of which few pay off.

Yes. The most recent information indicates they have made a wrong judgement. Your faith in them should be updated accordingly.