[granzymes]

I'm curious why you think that creating a for-profit subsidiary is objectionable, since it is extremely common for large nonprofits. A good example for this forum would be Mozilla, but many more were mentioned during the trial.

Also curious what conflicts of interest you have in mind.

[dooglius]

Just because other organizations do it doesn't make it not objectionable, and there have been many threads on HN criticizing Mozilla's structure along similar lines.

In this case, my understanding is that e.g. Altman is on the nonprofit board and also makes big $$$ from the for-profit, which seems like a pretty big conflict of interest.

[granzymes]

HN is of course not a monolith, but from my recollection most of the frustration and criticism w/r/t Mozilla is about its product strategy and executive team, not its corporate structure. Some other examples of nonprofits with for-profit subsidiaries include National Geographic, the AARP, and most research universities.

On Altman, the trial showed that Altman does not have any equity in the for-profit. He does have some indirect exposure through his investments in YC, since YC has a small position in OpenAI.

[az226]

He tried to get 11% equity but the trial made that impossible.

[senordevnyc]

Source?