| HN Mirror

Exactly. The problem here is that OA is too valuable, and the non-profit owns too much of it (ie. all of it). The non-profit owns exactly 100% of the OA for-profit right now, and can cancel the "PPUs" any time it pleases, and if you believe Altman about the agent roadmap, would be required to do so within a few years. Now, given that the PPUs are being raised at a pseudo-marketcap of $150b, we're hearing, and that non-profits are required to sell assets for fair market value, how can the board sell its 100% ownership of the for-profit for anything less than the $150b that the market values that ownership at...? And where does one get $150b, exactly? Even Sam Altman can't pull that off.

So, the whole question has been, how does he figure out how to leave the board with <50% ownership (preferably much less than, even 0%), in a way which passes the legal sniff test so the deal goes through, but which doesn't sacrifice >$75b that neither he nor anyone else has?

This is where the rhetoric and preparing the grounds comes in. You can argue that OA is actually worth <<$150b, maybe even as low as $0, by saying that it has value only because it is going to keep raising enough cash to reach AGI... but the board remaining in charge + the current cap on raising capital + Altman quitting will destroy that raising ability, rendering OA worthless. (Similar to his threat last year to destroy OA by creating a competitor in MS, and MS then immediately cutting off hardware & capital so the rump OA would starve to death.)

Hence, the board should - nay, is required by their legal & moral duties to the nonprofit - to accept much less than $150b, because whatever that deal is, it's more than $0.

This is of course ridiculous and wrong, but it's not so ridiculous that a board of loyalists can't sign off on it, nor that lawyers can't defend it in court in front of a judge who wants to rule in its favor (because judges will tolerate anything in nonprofits short of gross criminality).