OpenAI Audited Financial Report: $38.5 Billion Loss in 2025, $19.2 Billion Burned on R&D, Microsoft Takes $17.2 Billion in a Year

marsbitPublished on 2026-06-17Last updated on 2026-06-17

Abstract

OpenAI's audited financials reveal staggering losses. In 2025, the company reported a net loss attributable to OpenAI of $38.53 billion, a dramatic increase from a $5.1 billion loss in 2024. While revenue grew from $3.7 billion in 2024 to $13.07 billion in 2025, costs skyrocketed to $34 billion. A massive $41.55 billion loss from the fair value change of convertible equity and warrant liabilities, tied to its shift to a for-profit structure, significantly contributed to the 2025 result. Research and development spending reached $19.18 billion in 2025. The filings also show OpenAI paid Microsoft approximately $17.2 billion in 2025 for services, including $10.59 billion categorized under "research and development," likely for model training costs. Other major payments included $867 million from SoftBank and $303 million from Microsoft to OpenAI. The report raises serious concerns about the AI company's path to sustainability and profitability, highlighting financial figures far exceeding external expectations.

Author: Ed Zitron

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: OpenAI's audited financial report has been exposed for the first time, revealing losses far exceeding external expectations. The loss soared from $5.1 billion the previous year to $38.5 billion in 2025, with R&D expenditure as high as $19.2 billion, while Microsoft received $17.2 billion in fees from OpenAI in a single year. How far is this AI star company, valued at hundreds of billions, from achieving profitability?

Today, I can exclusively report, based on audited financial documents reviewed by this publication (independently verified by the Financial Times), that OpenAI lost approximately $38.5 billion in 2025, along with other key details about the company's financial condition.

Given the seriousness of this report, I will not comment extensively, as the numbers speak for themselves.

OpenAI Lost $5.1 Billion in 2024

2024 – OpenAI revenue was $3.7 billion, costs and expenses were $12.4 billion, and the net loss attributable to the company was $5.1 billion.

OpenAI's financial statements tell the story of a company with staggering losses.

Revenue: $3.7 billion

Cost of Revenue: $2.65 billion

Research and Development: $7.81 billion

Sales and Marketing: $1.11 billion

General and Administrative: $907 million

Total Costs and Expenses: $12.48 billion

Operating Loss: $8.78 billion

Other factors including interest income and interest expense brought its net loss to $8.84 billion. It then marked $3.74 billion of the loss as "Net loss attributable to noncontrolling member capital," making the net loss attributable to the company $5.1 billion.

It is currently unclear what this means or how OpenAI adjusted to remove $3.74 billion in costs. I will not speculate further.

OpenAI Lost $38.5 Billion in 2025

2025 – OpenAI revenue was $13.07 billion, costs and expenses were $34 billion, the loss was $20.92 billion, and the net loss attributable to the company was $38.53 billion.

Revenue: $13.07 billion

Cost of Revenue: $7.5 billion

Research and Development: $19.18 billion

Sales and Marketing: $5.73 billion

General and Administrative: $1.57 billion

Total Costs and Expenses: $34 billion

Operating Loss: $20.92 billion

Note that 2025 was the year OpenAI transitioned from a non-profit to a for-profit entity, resulting in a $41.55 billion loss due to changes in the fair value of convertible equity and warrant liabilities.

Considering other minor factors such as interest income and interest expense, OpenAI's net loss was $60.35 billion. This was reduced to $38.53 billion by removing $17.87 billion via "Net loss attributable to noncontrolling member capital" and an additional $395 million via "Net loss attributable to redeemable noncontrolling interests."

Ultimately, the net loss attributable to OpenAI in 2025 was $38.5 billion.

At year-end, OpenAI had assets just over $50 billion, nearly half of which was cash.

SoftBank Paid OpenAI $867 Million, Microsoft Paid $303 Million in 2025

In 2025, SoftBank paid OpenAI $867 million. Microsoft paid $303 million.

The documents disclose how much OpenAI paid Microsoft in service fees. In the 2025 calendar year, OpenAI paid Microsoft $10.59 billion for "research and development" expenses. We believe this likely refers to the costs of training OpenAI models.

The documents also mention a $6.047 billion fee related to "cost of revenue," $527 million in sales and marketing expenses, and $42 million in "general and administrative expenses." In total, OpenAI's payments to Microsoft amounted to $17.2 billion.

According to the data, at the end of the calendar year, OpenAI had liabilities to Microsoft of $3.64 billion, plus another $21 million in "accrued expenses and other current liabilities." The documents also mention an additional $58 million in non-current liabilities.

Follow-up Note

I intend to follow up on this story next month with a more in-depth report related to these documents. The documents are quite detailed, and I need time to fully parse them. You will know once it's done.

OpenAI's financial condition is deeply concerning. A loss of $38.53 billion is an astronomical figure, far higher than most anticipated. The losses also appear to be growing at an alarming rate year over year. I am unsure how this company finds a path to any form of sustainability or profitability.

As mentioned, I have not commented much today. I believe the best thing I can do for the public is to deliver this news as concisely as possible.

Has the Crypto Market Bottomed? Here's What Institutions Think

The crypto market is in a period of significant debate, with leading institutions offering differing views on whether a bottom has been reached. Three prominent firms have published detailed analyses: * **Galaxy Digital** argues Bitcoin has **not yet bottomed**. Their analysis of 13 historical indicators across six dimensions (valuation, profit-taking, miner pressure, etc.) shows only four are fully met. They project a potential bottom range between $30k and $54k. * **NYDIG** states a bottom is **possible but not likely**. While metrics are close to historic bear market extremes, they note the absence of a classic panic-selling event. They also suggest increased institutional adoption may have structurally altered the market cycle, potentially leading to a shallower downturn. * **Standard Chartered Bank** asserts the **bottom has already occurred** at around $59k. They cite two key factors: potential US-Iran diplomatic progress and the anticipated SpaceX IPO, which they believe absorbed capital and caused ETF selling pressure that is now subsiding. They forecast a year-end price target of $100k. Despite the surface-level disagreement, the reports share critical common ground more valuable for long-term investors: 1. All three believe the market bottom will form **within this year**. 2. All agree the current price is **closer to the bottom than to previous highs**. 3. All maintain a **bullish long-term outlook** for Bitcoin and a new cycle. The core takeaway is that while the exact bottom price ($40k, $50k, or $60k) is debated, the consensus is that a bottom is imminent. For long-term holders, the primary focus should not be pinpointing the absolute low, but on the future potential for prices to reach $100k, $200k, or higher. The fundamental thesis for Bitcoin—sovereign debt accumulation, inflation, declining trust in centralized institutions, global digitization, and improved accessibility—remains intact and is arguably strengthening. The overall landscape is viewed as more favorable than in previous crypto winters.

marsbit6m ago

Has the Crypto Market Bottomed? Here's What Institutions Think

marsbit6m ago

The 'Chip' Challenge and Breakthroughs in China's Optical Industry Chain

China's Photonics Industry: Bottlenecks and Breakthroughs In the global AI race, computing chips dominate the narrative, but the underlying bottleneck increasingly defining the scale of AI clusters is light—or more specifically, optical connectivity. Optical modules, which translate electrical signals to light and vice versa, are crucial for connecting thousands of GPUs in AI data centers, preventing data congestion and ensuring efficient model training. High-speed modules (800G, 1.6T) are now standard, with performance hinging on advanced DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chips. This is where a critical dependency lies. Two US giants—Marvell and Broadcom—collectively dominate over 90% of the high-end DSP chip market. Chinese optical module leaders like Zhongji Innolight and Eoptolink rely on these chips to manufacture modules for overseas AI customers, primarily in North America. While this creates a supply chain vulnerability, complete decoupling is difficult. Marvell derives over half its revenue from Greater China, and the US firms depend on Chinese partners for chip packaging and optical components. The risk from laser chips (e.g., from Lumentum), another key component, is considered more manageable due to multiple global suppliers and faster progress in domestic alternatives from companies like YOFC and Accelink. To mitigate risks, China's industry is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy: diversifying supply chains and locking in long-term orders; fostering a domestic market ecosystem to adopt homegrown DSPs from firms like Huawei HiSilicon and CETC; accelerating R&D in high-speed DSPs and advanced packaging; and investing in next-gen technologies like silicon photonics and Co-Packaged Optics (CPO) to reduce reliance on discrete DSPs. The ultimate solution lies not in short-term博弈 but in persistent advancement of domestic high-end chip R&D and manufacturing. While challenges remain in performance, certification, and ecosystem building, China's vast domestic market and manufacturing base provide a crucial buffer, buying time for the industry to achieve greater technological independence.

marsbit19m ago

The 'Chip' Challenge and Breakthroughs in China's Optical Industry Chain

marsbit19m ago

Behind SpaceX's $2 Trillion Market Cap: Why Does Musk Always Have the Next Move Planned?

On June 12th, SpaceX debuted on the Nasdaq, reaching a valuation that briefly touched $2 trillion. This marked the culmination of a 24-year journey from its founding in 2002, driven by Elon Musk's frustration at the high cost of buying rockets. The company's path was defined by early failures, with its first three Falcon 1 launches ending in explosions before a successful 2008 flight opened the era of commercial spaceflight. Key to its model was a fixed-price NASA contract, incentivizing cost reduction. SpaceX mastered rocket reusability, first achieving a Falcon 9 landing in 2015, which drastically cut launch costs. This enabled its profitable Starlink satellite internet constellation, envisioned years before reusability was proven, to create an internal market for frequent launches. Similarly, the next-generation Starship rocket was in development long before its first flight, with its business case evolving from Mars colonization to supporting the emerging concept of in-orbit data centers for AI—a story now central to its valuation. The company's recent IPO, a reversal of its long-standing "no IPO" stance, is funding this ambitious "space-based compute" vision. While major tech players like Google, Blue Origin, and others are investing heavily, significant technical and cost hurdles remain. Ultimately, SpaceX's history is one of creating its own demand: first with Starlink and now with space-based AI compute, betting that its next rocket will enable its next giant market.

marsbit22m ago

Behind SpaceX's $2 Trillion Market Cap: Why Does Musk Always Have the Next Move Planned?

marsbit22m ago

USDe Circumvents GENIUS Act Yield Ban: How Synthetic Dollars Became Crypto's Most Successful Gray Area?

In drafting the GENIUS Act, Congress prohibited licensed payment stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders—a rule that forced changes for USDC. However, Ethena's USDe, a rapidly growing "yield dollar," operates outside this regulation. USDe is a delta-neutral synthetic dollar backed by crypto collateral and hedged perpetual futures positions, generating yield from funding rates rather than traditional reserves. Because it doesn't fit the legal definition of a payment stablecoin, the GENIUS Act's restrictions do not apply. USDe's supply peaked above $14 billion in 2025, making it a top-three dollar-denominated crypto asset. Its model carries distinct risks, notably dependence on sustained positive funding rates and vulnerability during market deleveraging events, as seen in a brief depeg in October 2025. Regulatory approaches differ: Germany's BaFin banned USDe sales, viewing it as an unregistered security, while U.S. institutional capital, like Janus Henderson, has embraced it for treasury management. The GENIUS Act defined and regulated payment stablecoins but left synthetic dollars like USDe in a gray area. The unresolved question is whether future regulations will address this category or if yield will continue migrating to undefined spaces.

marsbit24m ago

USDe Circumvents GENIUS Act Yield Ban: How Synthetic Dollars Became Crypto's Most Successful Gray Area?

marsbit24m ago

When Crypto Meets the World Cup: CoinW and Modrić's Art of "Navigating Cycles"

When Encryption Meets the World Cup: CoinW and Modrić's "Transcending Cycles" Philosophy In the context of the 2026 FIFA World Cup and its massive global audience, the crypto exchange CoinW announced football legend Luka Modrić as its global brand ambassador. This move is framed not merely as a marketing tactic, but as a strategic experiment in user profile migration. It targets mature, financially stable football fans—particularly in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America—who traditionally have low crypto awareness but value trusted, time-tested authority figures like Modrić. The article draws parallels between Modrić's enduring, disciplined career—marked by consistency and success at the highest level over two decades—and CoinW's own development path. Founded in 2017 during a volatile industry period, CoinW focused on building robust infrastructure and risk management. It weathered the 2022 industry crisis without major security incidents, subsequently earning recognition like "Europe's Most Trusted Exchange" and growing to over 20 million registered users. This "long-termism" is translated into user-centric products. CoinW Academy lowers the initial knowledge barrier. Its integrated ecosystem (CoinW, GemW, DeriW, PropW) and the recent launch of a TradFi section—offering perpetual contracts on traditional assets like stocks, gold, and oil—aim to create a unified platform for diverse assets. For the World Cup, CoinW launched the "We Are The Game" campaign, collaborating with Alchemy Pay to offer zero-fee deposits and local payment options, aiming to transform spectators into participants and lower entry barriers. Ultimately, CoinW's sports partnerships and product strategy are presented as a concerted effort to build trust and accessibility for the "silent majority" still outside crypto—shifting the industry narrative toward inclusivity and long-term value.

Foresight News28m ago

When Crypto Meets the World Cup: CoinW and Modrić's Art of "Navigating Cycles"