Everything is personal preference, and perhaps I am more fiscally conservative because I grew up in poverty.

But if I own 49% of a company and that company has more hype than product, hasn't found its market yet but is valued at trillions?

I'm going to sell percentages of that to build my war chest for things that actually hit my bottom line.

The "moonshot" has for all intents and purposes been achieved based on the valuation, and at that valuation: OpenAI has to completely crush all competition... basically just to meet its current valuations.

It would be a really fiscally irresponsible move not to hedge your bets.

Not that it matters but we did something similar with the donated bitcoin on my project. When bitcoin hit a "new record high" we sold half. Then held the remainder until it hit a "new record high" again.

Sure, we could have 'maxxed profit!'; but ultimately it did its job, it was an effective donation/investment that had reasonably maximal returns.

(that said, I do not believe in crypto as an investment opportunity, it's merely the hand I was dealt by it being donated).

▲

freediddy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Microsoft didn't sell anything. OpenAI created more shares and sold those to investors, so Microsoft's stake is getting diluted.

And Microsoft only paid $10B for that stake for the most recognizable name brand for AI around the world. They don't need to "hedge their bets" it's already a humongous win.

Why let Altman continue to call the shots and decrease Microsoft's ownership stake and ability to dictate how OpenAI helps Microsoft and not the other way around?

	▲	zozbot234 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> They don't need to "hedge their bets" it's already a humongous win. That's a flawed argument. Why wouldn't you want to hedge a risky bet, and one that's even quite highly correlated to Microsoft's own industry sector?
	▲	theplatman 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		do we know whether Microsoft could have been selling secondary shares as part of various funding rounds? my impression is that many of these "investments" are structured IOUs for circular deals based on compute resources in exchange for LLM usage
	▲	tonyedgecombe 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		About the same as they wasted on Nokia.

▲

GardenLetter27 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not hype, the demand for inference has grown more this year than expected.

▲

saaaaaam 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t understand the “record high” point. How did you decide when a “record high” had been reached in a volatile market? Because at $1 the record high might be $2 until it reaches $3 a week or month later. How did you determine where to slice on “record highs”?

Genuine question because I feel like I’m maybe missing something!

	▲	dijit 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The short answer is: it's the secretary problem. The longer answer is; you never know whats coming next, bitcoin could have doubled the day after, and doubled the day after that, and so on, for weeks. And by selling half you've effectively sacrificed huge sums of money. The truth is that by retaining half you have minimised potential losses and sacrificed potential gains, you've chosen a middle position which is more stable. So, if bitcoin 1000 bitcoing which was word $5 one day, and $7 the next, but suddenly it hits $30. Well, we'd sell half. If the day after it hit $60, then our 500 remaining bitcoins is worth the same as what we sold, so in theory all we lost was potential gains, we didn't lose any actual value. Of course, we wouldn't sell we'd hold, and it would probably fall down to $15 or something instead.. then the cycle begins again..

▲

senordevnyc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s not more hype than product, it has found a market (making many billions in revenue), and it’s not valued at trillions. So wrong on all counts.

▲

solumunus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They haven’t sold anything they’ve been diluted.