Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报Published on 2026-05-12Last updated on 2026-05-12

Abstract

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuation...

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

The pre-IPO (Pre-IPO) stock token market has just experienced a severe shock. The epicenter of this earthquake stems from two statements issued by two major AI companies, Anthropic and OpenAI.

Anthropic and OpenAI Successively Declare They 'Do Not Acknowledge' Unauthorized Sales

Today, Anthropic updated an official statement it released in February titled "On Unauthorized Sales of Anthropic Stock and Investment Scams".

Anthropic explicitly stated in the article: "Any sale or transfer of Anthropic stock that is not approved by our Board of Directors, or any disposition of economic interests in Anthropic stock, is invalid (note the term 'invalid') and will not be recognized on the company's books and records. This means that if someone sells Anthropic stock without board approval, the transaction will be deemed invalid. The purported buyer will not be recognized as a shareholder of Anthropic and will not enjoy any shareholder rights."

Shortly after Anthropic updated its statement, OpenAI also followed up with an announcement stating: "All equity is subject to transfer restrictions. No shares may be transferred, directly or indirectly, without the Company's written consent. Any sale without consent is not only unauthorized but also invalid."

In their announcements, both Anthropic and OpenAI explained that the companies' preferred and common shares are subject to transfer restrictions stipulated in their charters, meaning all stock transfers require board consent.

Anthropic particularly emphasized that the company also does not permit "Special Purpose Vehicles" (SPVs) to acquire its shares, and any transfer of shares to an SPV violates the company's transfer restrictions...... Certain investment funds may claim to provide indirect access to Anthropic stock, but these funds are likely attempting to circumvent transfer restrictions. Therefore, any third party claiming to sell Anthropic stock to the public — whether through direct sales, forward contracts, stock tokens, or other mechanisms — may be engaged in fraud or offering worthless investments due to Anthropic's transfer restrictions.

  • Odaily Note: The image shows platforms named by Anthropic for unauthorized equity transfers.

What is an SPV?

To understand why this update has such a massive impact on the pre-IPO stock token market, one must first understand what an SPV is.

In traditional pre-IPO stock trading, directly transferring original shares is extremely difficult, restricted not only by company charters but also involving complex legal procedures. In this context, SPVs emerged.

An SPV is a legal entity established separately for a specific transaction or investment purpose, which can be understood as a 'shell company specifically used to hold a certain asset' — multiple investors can indirectly hold shares in a company or a type of asset by contributing capital to the same SPV, thereby achieving centralized ownership, lowering entry barriers, and optimizing legal and tax structures. SPVs are especially common in popular pre-IPO stock trades. As many star companies are often unwilling to directly introduce a large number of small shareholders, institutions typically first establish an SPV, which then uniformly invests in the target company.

For example, the so-called "early participation in Anthropic or OpenAI share subscriptions" in the market essentially involves investors first contributing capital to an SPV, which then uniformly acquires the unlisted equity of Anthropic.

Currently, most pre-IPO stock token platforms in the market (such as Prestock) adopt the SPV structure.

  • The platform or its partners will register an SPV in a certain jurisdiction. The sole task of this SPV is to buy original shares of Anthropic in the secondary market (usually from employees or early investors);
  • The platform then issues derivative tokens on-chain (such as ANTHROPIC or OPENAI), which are legally defined in agreements as "claims to the economic benefits of that SPV";
  • In theory, these tokens are 1:1 pegged to the original shares; for every token issued, the offline SPV should hold a corresponding share of stock.

But now the problem is, Anthropic and OpenAI have explicitly stated they 'do not acknowledge unauthorized stock transfers'. This means if an SPV transfers stock without board approval (which is basically impossible to obtain), the stock held by that SPV may be considered invalid in the eyes of Anthropic and OpenAI — if the SPV's stock is invalid, then the "economic benefits" referenced by the on-chain tokens become worthless.

The Risk of SPV "Nesting"

A significant reason why Anthropic and OpenAI are so resistant to SPVs is that with the ongoing speculative frenzy around their pre-IPO stock tokens (Anthropic's pre-IPO valuation once soared to $1.4 trillion, far higher than its last funding round valuation), the risk of SPVs becoming over-financialized has begun to surface.

Among these risks, the "nesting" problem of SPVs is most noteworthy — many investors buying pre-IPO stock tokens believe they are purchasing company shares, but in reality, they only hold claims to the economic benefits of some SPV. Even more exaggeratedly, many SPVs do not directly hold Anthropic's original shares but are themselves nested two or three SPV layers down.

This "nesting" structure is, in fact, very dangerous.

  • Legal Transparency Issues: With each additional layer, the authenticity of the underlying asset becomes more ambiguous. Investors find it difficult to confirm whether the SPV at the very bottom has actually received board approval for the transfer.
  • Management Fee Exploitation: Each SPV layer charges management fees, performance fees, and dividends. After layers of skimming, investors' actual returns are severely diluted.
  • Risk of Wipeout: If the equity transfer at any layer is deemed "invalid" by Anthropic, the entire value chain can collapse instantly.

Whether for reputation or investor protection considerations, Anthropic and OpenAI clearly do not want to see this situation.

Pre-IPO Stock Tokens Plunge, Contracts Remain Relatively Stable

Once the announcements from Anthropic and OpenAI spread, the market reacted immediately.

ANTHROPIC on PreStocks plunged sharply, once falling below $1,000, temporarily reported at $1,082 as of 12:00, down 20.62% for the day; OPENAI temporarily reported at $1,440, down 26.82% for the day.

Investors' panic is easily understood. Since Anthropic and OpenAI explicitly stated they do not acknowledge unauthorized holdings, the "rights" behind these tokens face the probability of becoming "worthless paper," and holders may face significant risks in confirming ownership and legal litigation costs.

Interestingly, while pre-IPO stock tokens were under pressure, another type of pre-IPO trading product performed relatively stably — pre-IPO contracts that rely entirely on market bilateral speculation. This is because such products do not inherently hold any real stock; the restrictions by Anthropic and OpenAI have no direct impact on them. They are essentially "bilateral bets" on the future IPO price, relying on price competition between buyers and sellers.

Future Trend Predictions

Facing Anthropic and OpenAI's "non-acknowledgment" stance, two contrasting voices have emerged within the industry.

Some believe the logic of pre-IPO crypto-stock trading is dead. If headliners like Anthropic and OpenAI take the lead in banning SPVs, other giants may follow suit. With the backing of equity rights being shaken, whether pre-IPO stock tokens still hold value is questionable.

However, others, including Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, believe this is not a big deal. Trading pre-IPO stock tokens through unofficial channels is inherently a gamble; buyers should have been prepared for the possibility that the "company would not acknowledge" them from day one — what you lack is direct investment opportunities; obtaining such opportunities through other means always carries certain risks.

In summary, with the continuous expansion of pre-IPO stock token premiums and increasingly fervent market sentiment, the stance of Anthropic and OpenAI undoubtedly pours a bucket of cold water on the entire sector.

Over the past few months, more and more investors have begun to view pre-IPO stock tokens as a "low-barrier channel to participate in the growth of top AI companies." The valuations of some AI-concept pre-IPO stock tokens have clearly detached from reality, even experiencing frenzied speculation far exceeding the valuations of their last funding rounds. Against this backdrop, the public "debunking" by Anthropic and OpenAI is, in a way, redrawing boundaries for this wildly growing new market.

For speculators, this is a risk education; but for the industry's long-term development, the market may also need such a "de-bubbling" moment.

Related Questions

QWhat did Anthropic and OpenAI declare regarding the transfer of their stocks?

ABoth Anthropic and OpenAI declared that any transfer or sale of their company stock without the express approval of their respective boards of directors is unauthorized and considered 'invalid.' They will not recognize such transfers on their company books and records, meaning buyers in these unauthorized transactions would not be considered shareholders and would have no shareholder rights.

QWhat is an SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) and what is its role in pre-IPO stock token trading?

AA Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is a legal entity created for a specific transaction or investment purpose, often acting as a 'shell company' to hold an asset. In pre-IPO stock token trading, platforms use SPVs to indirectly acquire shares of a target company (like Anthropic) from employees or early investors. The platform then issues blockchain tokens representing a claim on the economic benefits of the SPV, theoretically pegged 1:1 to the underlying shares.

QWhy did the announcements by Anthropic and OpenAI cause a significant drop in the price of pre-IPO stock tokens?

AThe announcements caused a significant price drop because they fundamentally questioned the value of the underlying assets. By declaring unauthorized stock transfers 'invalid,' Anthropic and OpenAI implied that the shares held by the SPVs backing the tokens might be worthless. This creates substantial legal and ownership risks for token holders, leading to panic selling and a loss of confidence in these instruments.

QWhat is the 'nesting doll' risk associated with SPVs mentioned in the article?

AThe 'nesting doll' risk refers to a structure where an SPV does not directly hold the target company's shares but instead holds interests in other SPVs, which themselves may hold shares or interests in further SPVs. This creates several dangers: it obscures the true ownership and validity of the underlying shares, subjects investor returns to multiple layers of management fees, and increases the risk of total loss ('going to zero') if any layer in the chain is deemed invalid by the target company.

QAccording to the article, how did pre-IPO stock futures contracts react compared to the token market after the announcements?

AAccording to the article, pre-IPO stock futures contracts remained relatively stable compared to the collapsing token market. This is because these futures contracts are purely speculative derivatives based on the future IPO price and do not involve any claim on or holding of the actual company shares. Therefore, they were not directly affected by Anthropic's and OpenAI's statements regarding the invalidity of unauthorized share transfers.

Related Reads

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Nationals from Using Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Access to Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal On June 12th, the U.S. government ordered AI company Anthropic to immediately suspend all foreign access—including foreign nationals within the U.S. and Anthropic's own foreign employees—to its newly released Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models, citing national security concerns. This forced Anthropic to temporarily disable access to both models for all users globally, as it cannot technically differentiate user nationality at scale. The models, released just three days prior, represent Anthropic's highest public capability tier. Fable 5 is the first publicly available model from the advanced "Mythos" family, while Mythos 5 is a less-restricted version for approved cybersecurity and critical infrastructure partners. The government's directive was reportedly triggered by claims from another company that it could "jailbreak" Mythos 5, raising alarm within the Trump administration. Anthropic, in a detailed public statement, strongly challenged this rationale. The company argues the demonstrated "jailbreak" is a narrow, non-generalized technique that merely involves identifying minor, known software vulnerabilities—a capability common to other publicly available models like OpenAI's GPT-5.5 and routinely used by cybersecurity defenders. Anthropic stated it has complied with the order but disagrees with the government's standard, warning that applying it industry-wide would halt all new frontier model deployments. The company criticized the lack of a transparent, fact-based legal process and expressed confidence the situation stems from a misunderstanding. It is working to restore access and will release more technical details within 24 hours. Other Anthropic models remain unaffected.

链捕手18m ago

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Nationals from Using Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal

链捕手18m ago

The Revelation from the Raydium Theft Incident: New DeFi Vulnerabilities Lurking in Forgotten Old Contracts

**Raydium Exploit Reveals DeFi's Hidden Risk: Forgotten "Zombie" Contracts** A recent attack on Raydium's deprecated V3 AMM pools resulted in a loss of approximately $1.34 million. The hacker exploited pools that were no longer supported by Raydium's current UI or SDK but remained fully functional and accessible on-chain. This incident highlights a critical, often overlooked category of risk in DeFi: inactive or legacy smart contracts that projects fail to properly decommission. Since March 2025, there have been at least 8 publicly reported attacks targeting such abandoned contracts, with total losses around $10.8 million. Including older pools and deprecated features, the count rises to 10 incidents with roughly $22.5 million in losses. These "zombie contracts" represent a lifecycle management failure rather than a code vulnerability, yet they are typically misclassified under general "code bug" categories in security reports, masking the true scale of the problem. The root cause is that projects often merely document a contract as "deprecated" without taking essential technical steps to secure it: withdrawing remaining assets, disabling external call functions, and implementing ongoing monitoring. These forgotten, under-monitored components become prime targets for attackers. To address this, the industry needs to recognize "zombie contracts" as a distinct risk category and establish standardized decommissioning protocols. Essential steps should include: 1) a formal retirement announcement, 2) removal of all front-end integrations, 3) withdrawal of locked assets, 4) disabling key contract functions, 5) ongoing security monitoring, 6) clear user communication, and 7) a post-mortem analysis. The value of a DeFi project lies not only in its current TVL but also in the security of its historical codebase, which has now become a new attack surface.

Foresight News2h ago

The Revelation from the Raydium Theft Incident: New DeFi Vulnerabilities Lurking in Forgotten Old Contracts

Foresight News2h ago

Robots Begin to 'Consume Data': The Hidden Production Chain from Indian Data Factories to Billion-Dollar Humanoid Robots

Robots have started to 'consume data,' driving the formation of a new industrial supply chain focused on producing training data for embodied AI. Unlike large language models, which are trained on vast internet text corpora, embodied AI models face a 'data desert' in the physical world. This has created a massive demand for first-person perspective video data (Ego Data), captured by workers wearing cameras in places like Indian garment factories. Companies like Neocambrian AI are establishing 'data factories' where workers perform standardized tasks (e.g., sorting clothes, kitchen organization) to generate thousands of hours of video. Research, such as NVIDIA's EgoScale, demonstrates that scaling this human demonstration data predictably improves robot performance, particularly for dexterous manipulation. This has validated a training path combining large-scale human data for pre-training with smaller amounts of robot-specific data for fine-tuning. The value of different data types varies significantly, forming a 'data pyramid.' The base consists of low-cost, large-scale internet and Ego Data. Higher layers include more expensive motion-capture data (e.g., from data gloves), simulation/synthetic data, and the most costly and scarce layer: real robot teleoperation data. This demand has spawned a layered ecosystem of data suppliers: low-cost data factories, motion capture and alignment specialists, robot-native teleoperation service providers, simulation data companies, and platforms aiming for data standardization. Robot companies themselves are adopting a 'layered procurement' strategy: outsourcing generic Ego Data while building in-house capabilities for robot-specific adaptation data and the critical deployment/failure data generated in real-world applications. The industry is shifting focus from hardware and basic mobility to the data pipelines required for general-purpose capability. While parallels exist to data labeling companies like Scale AI in the LLM boom, the physical complexity of robot data—involving action success ambiguity and sim-to-real gaps—requires more integrated solutions for data collection, annotation, and a continuous feedback loop. The race is on to build the data engines that will teach robots to operate reliably in the unstructured real world.

marsbit4h ago

Robots Begin to 'Consume Data': The Hidden Production Chain from Indian Data Factories to Billion-Dollar Humanoid Robots

marsbit4h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片