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

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Chip Stocks Lose Trillions in a Single Day, Bitcoin Falls Below $60,000, US-Iran Conflict Escalates

**Daily Tech & Markets Roundup: AI Advances, Market Turmoil, and Geopolitical Tensions** **AI / LLMs**: Anthropic's internal report on AI self-improvement sparked serious discussions about Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI). Meanwhile, debate continues on AI coding tools after Claude was accused of introducing bugs into the rsync codebase. In positive news, DeepSeek V4 Flash impressed in local deployment tests, and GitHub Copilot now supports custom endpoints for local models. A surprising research turn suggests removing chain-of-thought prompting can sometimes improve LLM performance. **Crypto / Web3**: Bitcoin plunged below $60,000, with its RSI hitting levels last seen during the COVID-19 crash, driven by strong U.S. jobs data reviving interest rate hike fears. Discussions highlight Ethereum DeFi's continued lack of a smooth consumer payment layer. **Chips / Hardware**: Chip stocks suffered a massive sell-off, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index posting its worst single-day drop in six years, erasing over a trillion dollars in value. Marvell, Micron, AMD, and Intel were among the biggest losers. **Tech Companies**: A leaked Microsoft document revealing goals to make Copilot "addictive" drew criticism. LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman left Microsoft's board to focus full-time on his AI agent startup, Manus. Google was revealed to be paying SpaceX $920 million monthly for AI training compute. **Markets & Macro**: A blowout U.S. jobs report (172k vs. 80k expected) crushed hopes for near-term rate cuts, sending Treasury yields soaring and triggering a broad market sell-off. CEOs from Kraft, McDonald's, and Whirlpool simultaneously warned U.S. consumers are exhausting their savings. **Geopolitics**: U.S.-Iran tensions escalated with missile/drone interceptions and U.S. strikes on Iranian radar sites, keeping the critical Strait of Hormuz largely closed since late February and posing ongoing oil supply risks. **The Bottom Line**: The strong jobs data acted as a single trigger for correlated sell-offs across equities, crypto, and chips. Underlying the volatility is a stark contradiction between robust employment data and warnings of consumer weakness, alongside geopolitical risks that could reignite inflation, leaving markets to price in a fraught macro outlook with no clear "soft landing" path.

marsbit2h ago

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Chip Stocks Lose Trillions in a Single Day, Bitcoin Falls Below $60,000, US-Iran Conflict Escalates

marsbit2h ago

It Took Me a Year to See the Bitter Truth About Agent Payments

After a year building infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, and Coinbase, the author shares a sobering analysis of the current state of Agent payments. The core finding is a stark lack of genuine, immediate demand across most envisioned use cases. The article breaks down four key market segments: 1. **Agent-to-Merchant (Consumer Shopping):** For most product categories (e.g., clothing, electronics), conversational AI shopping is a step backwards from visual e-commerce interfaces. While agents excel at understanding needs, they can't replace side-by-side product comparison. Real merchant interest is defensive "Agent Engine Optimization," not driven by current customer demand. Potential exists for high-frequency, low-decision purchases (like food delivery) or navigating complex store UIs, but these require massive B2C distribution channels dominated by giants like Amazon. 2. **Agent-to-API (Developer Services):** Developers already have subscriptions and billing relationships for APIs (compute, data). Prepaid balances solve micro-payment issues for low transaction volumes. A deeper structural problem is that major SaaS vendors' business models rely on enterprise contracts, resisting granular pay-per-call pricing. While protocols like MPP and x402 serve the long tail of niche services, this market is small and developers are historically low-willingness-to-pay. 3. **Agent-to-Agent:** This remains largely theoretical with minimal transaction volume. While it represents a long-term bet on a fundamentally new transaction infrastructure (sub-second, micro-penny to million-dollar, multi-party settlements), it does not constitute a present market. 4. **Agent-to-Finance:** This is the only category with existing, paying demand. Integrating AI into financial workflows (trading, portfolio management) is a natural evolution and enables new capabilities like autonomous rebalancing. However, competition favors established, regulated institutions. The "real problem" is not moving money between agents, but the broader challenge of **coordination**—orchestrating work between agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and settling results. Payment is just one component of settlement, which is itself part of coordination. Companies that solve the coordination layer will subsume payment, not the other way around. While well-funded incumbents build defensively for a long-term future, startups must find where the market is today—which, for the author's team, lies outside these four categories in an area of real, growing, and underserved activity.

marsbit3h ago

It Took Me a Year to See the Bitter Truth About Agent Payments

marsbit3h ago

It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments

**Title: It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments** Over the past year, I've worked on infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, Coinbase, and numerous startups. The findings reveal a stark reality: genuine, widespread demand for Agent-based payments does not yet exist. **Key Observations:** * **Agent-to-Merchant (Shopping):** The user experience for AI shopping often falls short, especially for visual product discovery. While AI excels at understanding needs, conversational interfaces can't yet replace browsing and comparing multiple products visually. Current merchant interest is largely defensive ("Agent Engine Optimization") for a future that hasn't arrived. High-frequency, low-friction purchases (like food delivery) are potential fits, but lack open APIs and face high AI inference costs. Simpler, more affordable, or cross-language interactions for complex UIs are a niche opportunity but require massive consumer distribution to scale. * **Agent-to-API (Developer Tools):** Developer payment needs for APIs (computing, data, models) are already met through subscriptions and prepaid credits. The core challenge is not payment friction but supplier economics: most large SaaS providers prefer enterprise contracts over micropayments for API calls. Protocols like MPP and x402 suit the long-tail of smaller services but cater to a developer market historically reluctant to pay for these tools. Major infrastructure needs at the top of the stack are already being addressed. * **Agent-to-Agent (Machine Commerce):** This is a long-term vision with almost no current transaction volume. While a future with high-speed, high-frequency, multi-party machine-to-machine transactions would require novel infrastructure, it remains theoretical. The market is not here yet. * **Agent-to-Finance:** This is the only category with clear, present demand. Financial professionals and DeFi users already pay for tools, and AI augmentation is a natural evolution. Autonomous AI agents can enable entirely new financial strategies. However, competition is fierce from established, regulated incumbents who can more easily layer AI onto their existing products. **The Core Insight:** Companies, especially giants with long time horizons, are building defensively for a potential future of mass machine commerce. For them, early investment is a low-cost hedge. For startups, the current market reality is different. The primary challenge isn't just moving money between agents (payments). The larger, unsolved problem is **orchestration** – coordinating work between agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and then settling. Payment is just a part of settlement, which is just a part of orchestration. Companies that solve the orchestration problem will subsume payments, not the other way around. After a year of building, we see the real, growing, and underserved market opportunity lies in this broader domain of orchestration.

链捕手3h ago

It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments

链捕手3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片