undefined | Better HN

0 pointsameister142y ago0 comments

That's a bit rude, especially since you're wrong.

Prior to Ian Hathaway's takeover a few months ago Sam Altman owned over 75% of the fund, according to their Form ADV filings with the SEC.

I get why you're confused, though, given their use of fake filing names I think the ownership and structure of the OpenAI fund has been so opaque from the start it's actually hard to know who has what.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

danielmarkbruce2y ago· 2 in thread

Find the filings, and read them. And understand what a limited partnership is, what the general partner does, and why saying "he owned 75% of the fund" is nonsensical. He didn't "own the fund", the new guy doesn't "own the fund". He was acting as GP and now another guy is acting as GP, in both cases through another entity. The structure of OpenAI isn't any more opaque than any other reasonable sized business and there are reasons for additional entities, it's not all about obfuscation.

ameister14OP2y ago

I feel like you're being deliberately pedantic in a general sense and ignoring the terms of art here.

Direct owner is a term that basically means someone who has ownership, beneficial ownership, voting rights, or rights to sell. Sam Altman was that. He was also an indirect owner through OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, which is the other entity you are talking about. You don't need either to be GP, though it can make things simpler. As far as the bundle of rights in ownership is concerned, yes, he did own the fund.

Anyway, the obfuscation bit is from the filings with the state, not so much the SEC - there for a period of time OpenAI Startup Fund GP I was managed by Vespers, Inc. and had a bunch of registrants with fake names and fake directors and board members on the filings, all with the same address, an affordable housing unit in Santa Ana.

danielmarkbruce2y ago

Practically everything you are saying here is nonsense as it relates to a partnership. The partnership agreement for the actual fund, ie not the entities created for purposes of someone acting as the GP, will lay out the economics, who can do what, how/if the the general partner can be replaced, what they can and cannot do.

The statement that he owned 75% of the fund is deliberately misleading. That he was in control of an entity that acted as the GP of a partnership means "he was acting as GP". But, that doesn't sound as nefarious, and it doesn't sound so sensational, and that's why it's not being said that way.

The only way to know if something shady is going on is to read the partnership agreement of the actual fund. That's where the rubber meets the road.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse