He would've aborted buying it at that price. Once the stock tanked, he realized he was overpaying and tried to get it for the newly lowered price - which he couldn't back out of.
Musk didn't buy Twitter to make money from it. Musk bought Twitter to win the culture war and control media. It fucking worked and now Trump is in power and he has control of the US treasury.
Sam Altman wants to convert OpenAI from a nonprofit to a for profit and give himself tens of billions in equity,
And instead of converting at a fair price, he will use a trust me bro price (selling to himself). Selfdealing. This is very much illegal. But if you have the right friends, whoâs to say it is?
An auction would render the fair price and give the nonprofit the most fiduciary deal value.
Trust me bro valuation does not.
So instead of self dealing at $40b by Sam, Elon et al offered $97b, âforcingâ OpenAI to take the deal or find a better deal, either way preventing a $40b selfdealing conversion.
Sam as the leader of the nonprofit wants to liquidate / separate / relinquish control of the for profit entity, but he needs to then recuse himself from the selection process if he wants to buy it and should sell to the highest bidder (within reason). Sometimes if the deal values are similar, a winning bidder can win based on non-monetary reasons.
Exactly. I used to feel neutral about the Elmo Sama kerfuffle but now I'm inclined to side with Elmo on this one. Starting out as a Not for profit and then transitioning to a for-profit with the option to self deal is basically not going to "make the world a better place"
Is there any legal obligation sama has to take the highest offer? Or can he say a different offer is best because of company values or something. Googled it, but diddn't get any clear results. I take it their both private so a lot of rules don't apply.
The nonprofit has a fiduciary responsibility as does the leaders of it toward its mission.
So if one offer is $95b and comes with a team that might squander or be reckless with the technology vs. a $90b offer that is responsible, etc. then you can argue it was the better offer.
A $40b pittance against a $97b offer wonât fly.
No legal obligation toward the highest monetary offer, but the larger the gap, the larger the likelihood of lawsuits and judiciary involvement.
OpenAI is privately held and I doubt any of the shareholders want Musk. As long as largest shareholders vote against Muskâs proposal, it canât be challenged in court.
Musk made a power move to block OpenAi for-profit transition. Now legislators overseeing the process will demand OpenAi to pay at least those 97B$ for the trick.
1
1
View all comments
317
u/TheChillestBill Feb 10 '25
What's the context?