Will OpenAI or Anthropic IPO first?
Alright, let's talk about something that's really caught my eye this week: the market asking “Will OpenAI or Anthropic IPO first?” The current 'YES' price, betting on OpenAI, is sitting at 54%. That means the market thinks OpenAI has a slight but clear edge, pricing their chances at just over even money to beat Anthropic to the public markets. Frankly, my immediate reaction was, really?
This isn't some quiet corner of Kalshi, either. We're looking at a serious amount of conviction here: over 40,000 contracts have already changed hands, and there's a hefty 14,798 contracts in open interest. People are putting real money behind their predictions, and they’ve given OpenAI the narrow lead. The 'NO' side, backing Anthropic, is at 43%, leaving a small spread, as these things often do. What's even wilder is that this market doesn't close until January 1, 2040. We are talking about a long-term view, practically a lifetime in tech years.
Now, if you're just looking at the big names and recent headlines, it's easy to see why someone would put their money on OpenAI. They’ve dominated the conversation for the last couple of years. Their reported valuation is north of $80 billion, a figure that just keeps climbing with each new funding round. Anthropic, while a significant player with its own impressive valuation around $18 billion, hasn't quite reached the same stratospheric public recognition or valuation. So, intuitively, the bigger fish, the one everyone talks about, goes first, right?
Well, here’s the thing you need to know, and it's what makes me genuinely skeptical of that 54% for OpenAI: corporate structure. OpenAI isn't your typical Silicon Valley startup with a straightforward path to an IPO. As I understand it, OpenAI Global LLC, the for-profit entity that actually builds and sells the AI models, is controlled by a non-profit parent, OpenAI Inc. That for-profit entity has a “capped-profit” model, meaning investors only get a certain return before the profits flow back to the non-profit. I'm not a lawyer, but I’ve watched enough corporate finance to know that taking a company with that kind of structure public is a Herculean task.
How do you even begin to explain that to retail investors? What does 'capped profit' mean for future growth potential as a public company? It's a completely novel beast, and restructuring for an IPO would likely be an immense, time-consuming hurdle. It’s not just about wanting to go public; it’s about *how* you can go public. The legal and financial gymnastics required could add years to their timeline, even if they decided tomorrow they wanted to hit the NYSE.
Anthropic, on the other hand, while also having a strong ethical mission and significant investments from giants like Amazon and Google, appears to have a more conventional corporate structure under the hood. They're a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), which is a defined legal entity in many states and has a much clearer, established path to an IPO, albeit with some added responsibilities. This is a crucial distinction. It means their pathway to liquidity for investors, while still complex, is far more trodden.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. If I were forced to pick today, and knowing what I know about the regulatory hurdles and the sheer complexity of untangling OpenAI’s unique setup, I’d be putting my money on Anthropic. I think the market is perhaps overly fixated on OpenAI’s size and perceived momentum, without fully appreciating the structural anchor dragging on its ability to execute a traditional IPO. It's not impossible for OpenAI to figure it out, but the 'first' part of the question heavily favors the company with a simpler, more established corporate journey.
So, when I look at that 54% for OpenAI, I see an opportunity. I see a crowd that might be underestimating just how much heavy lifting OpenAI's legal and finance teams would have to do to make an IPO even feasible, let alone before Anthropic. For me, the smart money here is on the company with the less convoluted path, even if it's the smaller name in the headlines right now. The long market duration, all the way to 2040, just gives more time for those structural challenges to play out. I'm calling it: the market's got this one a little sideways.
