Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

41–50 of 359 posts

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

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporations exist at the pleasure of government do they not? No. “At the pleasure of” means total discretion. The government can’t just stop letting businesses incorporate because it doesn’t like how a county voted.

There is no constitutional right to incorporate. Theoretically states could stop it at any time. Although they would still have to honor corporations formed in other states so it’s of limited effect.

> There is no constitutional right to incorporate

The Constitution directly grants very few individual rights. It’s mostly a document about what the government can’t do.

> Theoretically states could stop it at any time

Sure. That’s not “at the pleasure of.” Driver’s licenses are not issued “at the pleasure of” a state. Neither are marriage certificates. They’re issued as a matter of process that binds both the issuer and recipient to a predictable set of rules.

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

#42
post #14
post #11

TFA: > OpenAI had spent months making the case that it was the economic heart of the California economy—and would be willing to leave if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. https://x.com/sama/status/1983223056668746218 : > California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other compa…

> if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. i'm a bit out of the loop but honestly why does California have a say? surely the investor base and Microsoft was a far harder negotiation than this one. this one smells of govt overreach.

Because of the unusual history of OpenAI, the Government had far more of a say than normal for a company. Remember, OpenAI was originally created as a California non-profit (a charity doing work to create a better AI future). As a charity, it doesn't have to pay the same taxes as it would as a for-profit company, but in exchange it has more rules it needs to follow. And then it released ChatGPT, it exploded in value, it needed to raise truly absurd amounts of capital in order to get to the next model, and thus the lawyers had to spend a good long time extracting the company from the charity.

For very good reasons, the laws make it hard to go from a charity to a for-profit company- because if you could easily transition between the two you could game tax laws with ease. In the end, being allowed to do this required negotiations, and promising to keep OpenAI in California- where they would be subject to other California regulations and taxes in the future.

If they had a "normal" corporate history- had been founded as a Delaware S Corp from the beginning- then this wouldn't be a thing and they would be free to move as they like(1). But, being a weird charity probably helped them attract talent in the critical beginning phases (before it became a money race with Zuck), and it has consequences now.

1: Just as an example, Palantir moved their corporate headquarters to Denver from Palo Alto years ago without a peep from the CA government.

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

#44

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

That seems like expected behavior from someone whose barely veiled pitch is "the first one to AGI will IPO - Install Planetary Overlord.[1] Give me money and be part of the future ruling elite!" (Whether his actual plan is based on what he's saying in public, or to take the money and run, permanently install his company as in inescapable rent-extracting middle-man for modern life[2], or something else, I don't know.)

1. Credit to Charles Stross, The Jennifer Morgue 2. Thneed-style capitalism

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

#45

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

Can someone explain to me what Sam Altman is doing to be so far ahead of everyone else in terms of navigating these high stakes roles? This happened at YC and a number of other places too, he goes into situations with nothing and comes out on top despite all odds. Is he that skilled an operator, negotiator, or manipulator or something?

It's a great question. Here are two Paul Graham (PG) quotes on Sam Altman (Sama) from 2008 and 2009.

Note, PG is the founder of YC, Sam's former boss, and the one who removed Sam from the position of President of YC after first appointing Sam to succeed him as President of YC. (Sama was more focused on OpenAI than on YC at the time, which doesn't work when you're supposed to be leading YC.)

2008 Essay "A Fundraising Survival Guide" https://www.paulgraham.com/fundraising.html

Sam Altman has it. You could parachute him into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king. If you're Sam Altman, you don't have to be profitable to convey to investors that you'll succeed with or without them. (He wasn't, and he did.) Not everyone has Sam's deal-making ability. I myself don't. But if you don't, you can let the numbers speak for you.

2009 Essay "5 Founders" https://paulgraham.com/5founders.html

5. Sam Altman I was told I shouldn't mention founders of YC-funded companies in this list. But Sam Altman can't be stopped by such flimsy rules. If he wants to be on this list, he's going to be. ... What I learned from meeting Sama is that the doctrine of the elect applies to startups. It applies way less than most people think: startup investing does not consist of trying to pick winners the way you might in a horse race. But there are a few people with such force of will that they're going to get whatever they want.

That's PG's take on Sama.

I would say, looking at a wide range of Sam Altman's more investments https://observer.com/2025/06/sam-altman-startup-investments/

from OpenAI to Helion energy (Fusion), to Retro Biosciences (longevity), Neuralink (brain computer interface), to Reddit

Sama really wants to "build the future," and when some of those investments "hit", like OpenAI did - basically become the first new company with a clear path to a $1T valuation since Facebook or TikTok), you gain immense credibility for "betting the future will happen and getting your organization there first."

If YC's motto is "build something people want," and OpenAI is now serving 800M active users while delivering incredible revenue growth (and investors want to see both). Sama gains power by giving investors what they want, by giving users what they want, and basically authoring an entire new type of software company and a new part of the economy.

A thing to note here is that, being a YC partner and top angel investor from 2011 to 2020, you can argue that Sam himself is "the most successful YC graduate." He saw thousands of companies go through YC. He saw hundreds of 'hard tech companies' go through YC. And in that decade, he could only have learned an immense amount about how VCs/successful CEOs think and make decisions. Certainly, we see the learnings of those experiences in what he's been able to pull off since.

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

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speculate so take it with a spoon of salt... But people who are really good at sussing out other people's wants can find ways to make more people happy. It's like a maze of interests and I guess he's just really motivated and good at navigating and aligning them (at least among the rich and powerful). He also seems to understand something about power and perception, in that he takes calculated risks that s…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#47
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations exist at the pleasure of government do they not? They are not some naturally-existing thing.

I would think that sort of framing implies that the government gives them permission to exist. Rather than, the natural state is that they exist unless they do something bad enough to be shut down. Unless you mean, they need the government's "permission" to even file to become a corporation... But even in that case, you aren't asking for permission, you're doing the old school equivalent of signing up for a domain, y…

> I would think that sort of framing implies that the government gives them permission to exist.

> Rather than, the natural state is that they exist unless they do something bad enough to be shut down.

JFC, come on. Corporations are legal entities and have no existence separate from the law. If they even have a natural state, that natural state is non-existence.

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

#48

How can a non-profit IPO? I know that technically OpenAI is a for-profit company that is owned by a non-profit, but I still don't get it.

It is being restructured to no longer be a nonprofit, but a for-benefit corporation instead. That is why California's approval was required (and IMO is just as corrupt as it sounds).

But aren't non profits a federal thing with rules dictated by the IRS? Why is California involved?

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

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speculate so take it with a spoon of salt... But people who are really good at sussing out other people's wants can find ways to make more people happy. It's like a maze of interests and I guess he's just really motivated and good at navigating and aligning them (at least among the rich and powerful). He also seems to understand something about power and perception, in that he takes calculated risks that s…

[flagged]

This is the guy who had everyone here rooting for him when the OpenAI board tried to kick him out. Which was almost certainly the result of a very successful PR campaign carried out by him.

He's not really comparable with Jobs. This guy is a politician and Jobs was a product guy.

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

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is being restructured to no longer be a nonprofit, but a for-benefit corporation instead. That is why California's approval was required (and IMO is just as corrupt as it sounds).

But aren't non profits a federal thing with rules dictated by the IRS? Why is California involved?

The Usa is divided into states, each with their own legal jurisdictions. Businesses tend to pay taxes to their state. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Post reply on HN