Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbitPublicado a 2026-05-12Actualizado a 2026-05-12

Resumen

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fel...

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

The pre-IPO stock token market has just experienced a severe shockwave. The epicenter of this earthquake comes from two statements issued by AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI.

Anthropic and OpenAI Successively State They "Do Not Recognize" Unauthorized Transfers

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

In the article, Anthropic explicitly stated: "Any sale or transfer of Anthropic stock, or disposition of an interest in Anthropic stock, that has not been approved by our board of directors, is invalid (note the use of 'invalid') and will not be recognized on the company's books and records. This means that if anyone sells Anthropic stock without board approval, the transaction will be deemed invalid. The purported buyer will not be recognized as an Anthropic shareholder and will not enjoy any shareholder rights."

Shortly after Anthropic updated its statement, OpenAI also followed up with an announcement stating: "All equity interests are subject to transfer restrictions. No shares may be transferred directly or indirectly without the written consent of the company. 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 stock are subject to transfer restrictions stipulated in their charters, meaning all stock transfers require board approval.

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

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

What is an SPV?

To understand why this update has had 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 specifically for a particular transaction or investment purpose. It can be understood as a 'shell company dedicated to holding a specific asset.' Multiple investors can indirectly hold shares in a company or a certain asset by contributing capital to the same SPV, achieving goals such as centralized ownership, lowered entry barriers, and optimized legal and tax structures. SPVs are particularly common in popular pre-IPO stock trading. Since many high-profile companies are often unwilling to directly introduce numerous small shareholders, institutions typically first set up an SPV, which then uniformly invests in the target company.

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

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

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

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

The Risk of SPV "Nesting"

A significant reason for Anthropic and OpenAI's strong opposition to SPVs is the growing risk of over-financialization as their pre-IPO stock tokens continue to be hotly traded (Anthropic's pre-IPO valuation once soared to $1.4 trillion, far exceeding its last funding round valuation).

Among these risks, the "nesting" of SPVs is most concerning — many investors buying pre-IPO stock tokens believe they are purchasing company shares, but are actually only buying claims to the economic benefits of an SPV. More exaggeratedly, many SPVs do not directly hold Anthropic's original shares but are instead 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 assets becomes more blurred. Investors find it difficult to confirm whether the bottom-most SPV has actually obtained the company's board transfer approval.
  • Management Fee Exploitation: Each layer of SPV charges management fees, performance fees, and dividends. After layer-by-layer skimming, investors' actual returns are severely diluted.
  • Zeroing Risk: If the equity transfer at any layer is deemed "invalid" by Anthropic, the entire value chain could instantly collapse.

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

Pre-IPO Stock Tokens Plummet, Contracts Remain Relatively Stable

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

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

Investor panic is easily understood. Since Anthropic and OpenAI explicitly stated they do not recognize unauthorized shareholdings, the "rights" behind these tokens face the probability of becoming "worthless paper." Holders may confront significant claim validation risks and legal litigation costs.

Interestingly, while pre-IPO stock tokens came under pressure, another type of pre-IPO stock trading product performed relatively stably — pre-IPO contracts that rely entirely on market-driven bilateral betting. The reason for this is that such products do not hold any real stock; Anthropic and OpenAI's restrictions have no effect on them. They are essentially "bilateral betting pools" on future IPO prices, relying on price competition between buyers and sellers.

Predictions for Future Direction

In response to Anthropic and OpenAI's "non-recognition" statements, two distinctly different voices have emerged in the industry.

Some believe the logic of pre-IPO tokenized stock trading is dead. If headliners like Anthropic and OpenAI are leading the charge to ban SPVs, other giants may follow suit. With equity backing being questioned, the value of so-called pre-IPO stock tokens is in doubt.

However, others, including Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, believe this is not a cause for alarm. Trading pre-IPO stock tokens through unofficial channels was always a gamble; buyers should have had the awareness from day one that the "company might not recognize" the shares. What you lack is direct investment opportunity; obtaining that opportunity through other channels always carries certain risks.

In summary, at a time when premiums for pre-IPO stock tokens have continued to expand and market sentiment has grown increasingly feverish, Anthropic and OpenAI's statements undoubtedly pour cold water on the entire sector.

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

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

Preguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what did Anthropic and OpenAI announce regarding unauthorized stock transfers?

ABoth Anthropic and OpenAI announced that any sale or transfer of their company stock without board approval is unauthorized and invalid. They will not recognize such transactions on their books, meaning buyers of such shares will not be considered shareholders and will have no shareholder rights.

QWhat is an SPV, and how was it typically used in the pre-IPO stock token market as described?

AAn SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) is a legal entity created for a specific transaction or investment. In the pre-IPO token market, platforms would use an SPV to purchase company stock (e.g., from employees). They would then issue tokens on a blockchain, which represented a claim on the economic benefits of that SPV, theoretically 1:1 with the underlying shares.

QWhy does the article consider the multi-layered 'nesting' of SPVs particularly risky?

AMulti-layered 'nesting' of SPVs is risky because it obscures the transparency of the underlying asset, makes it hard to verify if the transfer was authorized, involves multiple layers of fees that dilute investor returns, and creates a chain where if any one transfer is deemed invalid by the company, the entire value chain can collapse.

QHow did the market react to the announcements from Anthropic and OpenAI, particularly concerning different types of pre-IPO products?

AThe market reacted negatively to pre-IPO stock tokens based on SPV structures. For example, ANTHROPIC and OPENAI tokens on PreStocks saw significant price drops (over 20%). However, pre-IPO contracts, which are purely speculative bilateral bets on future IPO prices and do not hold actual stock, remained relatively stable as they were unaffected by the companies' transfer restrictions.

QWhat are the two contrasting viewpoints presented in the article regarding the future of the pre-IPO stock token market after these announcements?

AOne viewpoint is that the logic behind pre-IPO token trading is dead, as other major companies might follow Anthropic and OpenAI's lead, undermining the value of tokens without recognized underlying equity. The other viewpoint, from figures like Nick Abouzeid, is that this was always a known risk when buying through unofficial channels, and investors should have been aware that the company might not recognize such holdings from the start.

Lecturas Relacionadas

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Hace 14 min(s)

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

链捕手Hace 14 min(s)

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 NewsHace 2 hora(s)

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

Foresight NewsHace 2 hora(s)

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.

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

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

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片