OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

IPO motives and investor dynamics

• Several commenters frame the IPO as a way to offload an illiquid, high-risk investment onto the public, not primarily a need for liquidity or capital.
• Others note that with massive capex for data centers and model training, public markets are the only realistic way to raise the required sums.
• There’s debate over whether this is “classic” IPO (fund growth) vs. “pump-and-dump” (cash out before growth stalls); some see both motives operating at once.

Nonprofit → for‑profit conversion

• Many focus on the original nonprofit mission (safety, broad benefit) and see the conversion as a bait‑and‑switch once the tech became valuable.
• California’s role comes from OpenAI’s origin as a California charity: the AG is tasked with protecting charitable assets and ensuring they’re not diverted to private gain.
• Some point out that nonprofit status is a revocable privilege, not a prison; others worry this precedent undermines trust in all nonprofits if they can later privatize upside.
• There is disagreement over how much tax OpenAI “avoided” and whether the nonprofit actually conferred large financial advantages.

California leverage and the “stay” promise

• The article’s claim that OpenAI implicitly threatened to leave California if blocked is seen by some as corporate coercion bordering on corruption; others see it as normal negotiation between a major employer and a state.
• A linked memorandum of understanding reportedly binds OpenAI to give notice before moving HQ or changing control/mission, but people note nothing prevents a later exit once key events (like IPO) are done.
• Some think California got a rational trade: IPO‑related tax windfall and regulatory hooks in exchange for allowing the restructuring.

Sam Altman as operator

• A long subthread dissects Altman’s pattern: high social intelligence, aligning powerful interests, aggressive politics, and willingness to discard prior constraints (nonprofit structure, safety teams) when inconvenient.
• Opinions split between viewing him as a uniquely effective “future builder” versus a skilled manipulator with a record of broken promises.

Valuation, bubble risk, and retail investors

• Predictions range from “enduring trillion‑dollar brand” to “eventual Microsoft buyout after the bubble pops.”
• Several warn that ordinary investors will be “the bag” via index funds and meme‑like pricing, while insiders de‑risk; others argue huge user numbers and brand strength justify big bets.
• Some recommend avoiding the single stock entirely, preferring broad ETFs or simply owning Microsoft instead.

Location, power, and broader worries

• Long debate on whether SF’s AI cluster is irreplaceable or just historical path‑dependence; most agree the current talent and capital concentration gives California strong gravitational pull.
• There’s discomfort that critical AI governance is effectively being determined by bargaining between a megacorp and a single state AG.
• Additional concerns: massive energy build‑out for AI vs climate goals, further wealth concentration, and erosion of public trust when entities founded as global public‑benefit nonprofits end up as ultra‑valuable IPOs.