{"id":9475,"date":"2026-10-28T04:36:29","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T04:36:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=9475"},"modified":"2026-10-28T04:36:29","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T04:36:29","slug":"anthropic-ipo-resist-investor-pressure-cut-corners-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=9475","title":{"rendered":"Anthropic\u2019s elaborate plan to keep Wall Street at bay"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Anthropic wants to have it both ways. With its impending IPO, it wants to tap the vast riches of the public markets<\/a> and insists it doesn\u2019t want to compromise its core mission of developing AI safely and for the benefit of humanity. But greater model capabilities bring greater risks, and shareholders eager for returns may have little patience for costly safety measures that slow products on their way to market.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sam Altman, the CEO of Anthropic\u2019s archrival, OpenAI, has cited<\/a> investor pressures as one reason the company is not pursuing an IPO this year. Anthropic hopes it can resist investor pressures with a mind-boggling governance structure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A \u201cunique and complicated governance structure that has not been used before\u2026creatively designed for this founder-led and mission-driven company.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

University of Pennsylvania law professor Elizabeth Pollman told The Verge<\/em> that Anthropic has proposed<\/a> going public with a \u201cunique and complicated governance structure that has not been used before\u201d and that has been \u201ccreatively designed for this founder-led and mission-driven company.\u201d Experts say it should give Anthropic freedom to pursue profits without letting shareholders force it to cut corners on safety or rush systems out before they\u2019re adequately tested. But even the strongest legal protections can only go so far, and no corporate structure, no matter how well designed, can completely insulate a public company from the demands of the market.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Foremost, Anthropic is a public benefit corporation. Simply put, it is legally required to focus on more than just maximizing shareholder returns, balancing these with its stated social mission and the interests of stakeholders, such as employees and specific communities. Patagonia and Kickstarter are among the better-known examples, with missions centered on environmental conservation and supporting creative communities, respectively.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Another key safeguard aims to protect Anthropic\u2019s mission by limiting shareholder influence over one of the biggest levers of corporate power: the company\u2019s board of directors. Directors oversee the company and appoint its leadership, including the CEO. Directors can also hold executive roles, as is the case with Anthropic, with CEO Dario Amodei and president Daniela Amodei both sitting on the board.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Shareholders typically have considerable sway over who sits on the board, giving them a means to replace directors or push for changes if they are unhappy with how the company is being run. For example, if shareholders are unhappy at what they perceive as unnecessary delays to market for optional safety testing, they may remove directors and replace them with ones more aligned with their interests, such as making money and being less cautious.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cAnthropic is entirely insulated from profit seeking pressures, in the sense that ordinary shareholders have no ability to select the board or make business decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Under Anthropic\u2019s proposed governance structure, ordinary shareholders won\u2019t have much of a say over who is on the board at all. Instead, four of the board\u2019s seven directors will be chosen by a special body called the long-term benefit trust, explains Jens Dammann, a professor in business and commercial law at the University of Texas School of Law. It is a highly unusual setup for a major technology company.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The trust<\/a> is made up of \u201cfive financially disinterested voting trustees\u201d with expertise in \u201cAI safety, national security, public policy, and social enterprise.\u201d Through a special class of share called Class T stock, the trustees can appoint or remove directors in pursuit of their stated purpose: ensuring \u201cthat Anthropic responsibly balances the financial interests of stockholders with the interests of those affected by Anthropic\u2019s conduct and our public benefit purpose.\u201d The trust is designed to operate independently of the company\u2019s commercial pressures, allowing it, in theory, to put Anthropic\u2019s mission first.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Ordinary shareholders technically have a say in the board\u2019s three remaining seats. However, Anthropic has created another safeguard that keeps power firmly in the hands of its founders, called \u201cFounder LLC,\u201d which will control 50.1 percent of the voting power on shareholder matters. Given that many shareholder votes are decided by a simple majority, Founder LLC basically gives Anthropic\u2019s founders the ability to block or force through decisions, regardless of how other shareholders vote. This means that they will effectively choose the remaining three directors, Columbia Law School professor Dorothy Lund told The Verg<\/em>e.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The prospectus says Founder LLC will \u201cinitially\u201d be seven of Anthropic\u2019s founders: Dario Amodei, Daniela Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, and Christopher Olah. \u201cOur seven co-founders will initially be the sole members.\u201d Notably absent is another cofounder, Ben Mann, who co-leads the company\u2019s experimental Anthropic Labs arm, as reported<\/a> by The San Francisco Standard<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

All in all, the arrangements would give Anthropic\u2019s founders and the trust \u201ctremendous power\u201d over the company\u2019s direction, shielding it from many of \u201cthe pressures associated with being a public company,\u201d Dammann told The Verge<\/em>. \u201cGiven the unusual governance structure Anthropic has chosen, I don\u2019t see how going public, by itself, would undermine its ability to prioritize safety over commercial interests.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Ann Lipton, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, agreed, telling The Verge<\/em> that, legally speaking, \u201cAnthropic is entirely insulated from profit seeking pressures, in the sense that ordinary shareholders have no ability to select the board or make business decisions.\u201d But Lipton cautioned that the founders themselves have financial stakes in the company, which could influence their decisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cInvestors may not mind their lack of voice as long as things go well. But if things go sour, they may become quite frustrated.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And there\u2019s a big difference between legal protections and immunity from market pressures. Anthropic, like all AI companies, \u201cdesperately needs capital,\u201d Lipton said. \u201cIt\u2019s not clear to me that any governance structure will protect against the market reality that unless Anthropic takes advantage of profit making opportunities at a faster pace than its competitors, it will not be able to fund its operations.\u201d Lund expressed similar concerns. Anthropic will still \u201cneed to stay in the good graces of their investors,\u201d she said, adding that \u201ccompetitive pressure and capital needs can erode safety commitments over time.\u201d Anthropic did not respond to The Verge<\/em>\u2019s request for comment on whether it felt the company could actually resist shareholder pressure to massively accelerate AI at the cost of safety.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Another potential vulnerability emerges if Anthropic\u2019s founders start leaving. In its prospectus, the company says its success is \u201chighly dependent on the continued service\u201d of its senior team, particularly its founders. Dario and Daniela are singled out as being especially \u201ccritical\u201d to advancing the company\u2019s research and mission. But beyond the loss of leadership, their departure could trigger significant changes in how the company is structured, potentially stripping away some of the safeguards preventing Anthropic from pursuing profit over safety.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Under the proposed structure, Founder LLC would \u201csunset\u201d if a majority of its members leave or the group chooses to dissolve it. Once that happens, ordinary shareholders could gain the power to weaken the trust\u2019s protections, even against the wishes of the trustees, and without the support of the founders or employees, who hold different classes of stock, Dammann told The Verge.<\/em> Other means of subverting the trust also exist, he explained, including coordinated action by the public shareholders, employee stockholders, and founders.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

For now, it seems, Anthropic can probably have it both ways. But the protections designed to preserve its commitment to AI safety are far from ironclad, and much depends on market pressures, whether its founders stick around, and directions of the trust. Dammann said he sees a \u201cfundamental dilemma that cannot be resolved in a fully satisfactory way\u201d between Anthropic\u2019s mission and investor demands. As long as things are going well, this tension may be manageable. \u201cInvestors may not mind their lack of voice as long as things go well,\u201d Dammann said. \u201cBut if things go sour, they may become quite frustrated.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n