OpenAI and Anthropic equity tokens plummet 40%: Why is PreStocks' illegal transfer worthless?

On May 12–13, 2026, valuation giants in the artificial intelligence field, OpenAI and Anthropic, almost simultaneously updated their equity transfer policies, explicitly declaring: any equity transfer without the company’s written consent is invalid, including direct buying and selling, SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) holdings, tokenized equity rights, and all other forms such as forward contracts. This statement quickly propagated through the crypto market. On the PreStocks platform built on the Solana chain, Anthropic- and OpenAI-related equity tokens plummeted by approximately 40% and over 30%, respectively, within 24 hours.

These tokens had previously been marketed as channels for early investment opportunities ahead of top AI companies’ IPOs, with operational logic closely tied to SPV structures. However, once the original equity-holding companies publicly denied the legitimacy of the underlying assets, the on-chain token’s economic value rapidly collapsed to zero.

Why did OpenAI and Anthropic simultaneously tighten their equity transfer policies?

OpenAI and Anthropic’s tightening of equity transfer policies is not an isolated action but a proactive control measure against the increasingly widespread issue of “shadow shareholders.” Both companies stated that all equity transfers require written approval from the board of directors, a regulation now embedded in their bylaws. Unauthorized transfers will not be recorded in the company’s books, and buyers will not enjoy any shareholder rights; such transactions are considered to have “no economic value.”

From a corporate governance perspective, the motivations behind this tightening include three aspects. First, preventing SPV or tokenized products from creating uncontrolled “shadow shareholders,” making it difficult for the company to grasp the true ownership structure. Second, clearing obstacles for a potential 2026 IPO, avoiding secondary market valuations that deviate significantly from official pricing systems, which could interfere with IPO pricing narratives. Third, reducing compliance risks under U.S. securities law and cracking down on fraudulent financing conducted under the guise of SPV. Notably, both companies do not completely prohibit equity transfers. In a recent financing round, OpenAI allowed each employee to sell up to $30 million worth of shares; last October, over 600 employees sold shares totaling $6.6 billion. Anthropic is also planning a buyback offer for employees, with an estimated valuation of about $350 billion.

In other words, the essence of this tightening is “control enhancement,” not “liquidity suppression.” Tokenized products not included in the official authorized channels are explicitly excluded from recognized scope.

How invalid tokenized equity transfers trigger market sell-offs

Market reactions to this policy adjustment were extremely swift. According to Gate data (as of May 15, 2026), since the statement was issued, Anthropic-related tokens fell about 34% over seven days, and OpenAI-related tokens dropped about 39% in the same period. Reports also indicated that Anthropic PreStocks once plunged by 45% within 24 hours, with implied market value dropping from approximately $1.4 trillion to about $762 billion, evaporating roughly $638 billion in nominal value.

The logic chain of the sell-off can be broken down into three stages. The first is “the collapse of ownership expectations” — investors previously purchased tokens based on the core assumption that they indirectly held economic value of the original equity. Once Anthropic explicitly stated that “token holders are not on the official shareholder register,” this assumption was thoroughly shattered. The second is “the spread of liquidity panic” — even if investors realize the assets’ value is doubtful, their primary concern becomes whether they can cash out in time. The limited liquidity of PreStocks amplifies this panic. The third is “systemic valuation correction” — the market’s implied valuation of Anthropic had once soared to $1.3–1.5 trillion, but the actual assets backing PreStocks’ SPV are only about $23 million. The valuation gap exceeds 5,500 times. After the statement, the implied valuation reverted toward official financing valuations (rumored at around $900 billion, with official recognized valuation between $350 billion and $380 billion), releasing significant downward momentum.

Why SPV structures are a fragile weak point in tokenized equity

SPV is the underlying architecture of PreStocks’ operation model. An SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) is a shell company established for specific transactions or investments. In pre-IPO stock tokenization scenarios, the typical process involves three steps: first, the platform or its partners register a legal entity; second, the SPV acquires the target company’s original shares from early employees or investors; third, the platform issues tokens on the blockchain, defining them as “claims to the economic benefits of the SPV,” and sells these to investors.

The core issue with this architecture is “ownership disconnect”. Token holders hold claims against the SPV, not direct ownership of the target company. The SPV holds stocks purchased from the secondary market, but if these stocks are transferred without written approval from the target company’s board, their legality is in question. When Anthropic and OpenAI explicitly stated that “any transfer of shares to an SPV is invalid,” the legal basis for the SPV’s stock holdings was fundamentally undermined. Consequently, the economic benefits indicated by the on-chain tokens also collapsed.

Using “invalid” (void) rather than “voidable” is a key upgrade in this declaration. Some crypto legal experts point out that under Delaware corporate law, “invalid” means that the original seller may still retain stock rights after receiving funds; meanwhile, downstream buyers’ tokens may be deemed assets with no legal recourse value. This fundamental structural flaw means that the value of tokenized equity products entirely depends on whether the target company recognizes the transfer, not on the blockchain’s tamper-proof or smart contract features.

Why PreStocks’ actual liquidity is far below its paper valuation

Beyond the fatal legal flaw, PreStocks’ extremely low liquidity is another major factor amplifying the recent plunge. According to on-chain liquidity data, as of May 15, 2026, the stablecoin liquidity pool related to Anthropic on PreStocks was only slightly above $333,000, and Solana liquidity was just over $18,000.

This stark contrast with the implied valuation of the tokens means that when the market floods with sell pressure due to the statement, the actual funds available to support any meaningful transactions are almost nonexistent. Early buyers, despite recording substantial paper gains, face enormous difficulty in cashing out due to liquidity constraints. Reports show that as of April 16, 2026, a trader accumulated about $1.5 million in paper profits on Anthropic-related tokens but was unable to fully exit due to liquidity issues.

The liquidity shortage further exposes another weakness in PreStocks’ operation: the platform has not published the asset holding audit reports promised at launch, nor has any third-party auditor independently verified the actual holdings of the SPV. Without effective audits, token holders can only rely on platform disclosures, which increases information asymmetry and further weakens market confidence. The time-limited trading window and reliance on order book transactions also make it harder for ordinary investors to exit promptly under extreme market conditions.

The regulatory vacuum and compliance reconstruction in the tokenized equity market

This incident occurs against the backdrop of global regulators re-examining “real-world asset tokenization (RWA)” and equity tokenization products. In March 2026, the U.S. SEC and CFTC jointly issued milestone regulatory guidelines classifying major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana as “digital commodities” rather than securities. However, the legal positioning of equity tokenization products remains ambiguous.

In early May 2026, industry executives publicly warned that “synthetic tokenized stocks pose risks to markets and retail traders.” An official from Intercontinental Exchange (ICE, parent company of NYSE) pointed out that offshore synthetic tokens “may not represent underlying equity,” “use company names without approval,” and “exploit regulatory arbitrage.” Securitize’s founder further noted that the same stock could have up to five different tokenized versions, but “none of them actually represent the company’s equity.”

The core issue revealed by the OpenAI and Anthropic incidents is that: if equity tokenization lacks explicit authorization from the underlying asset issuer, it always carries the risk of value collapsing to zero. Issuers can legally deny unauthorized tokenization arrangements through shareholder agreements and transfer restrictions in the articles of incorporation. This is not a technical problem but a fundamental ownership issue that cannot be bypassed.

In contrast, a recently launched regulated tokenized equity system on Solana, jointly developed by Securitize, Jump, and Jupiter, adopts a different approach — the issuer directly cooperates with registered broker-dealers, following U.S. securities law compliance frameworks, ensuring investors receive directly recognized equity rights approved by the issuer. Comparing these two models shows that compliance (rather than technological novelty) is the core boundary of tokenized equity.

How the secondary and pre-IPO tokenized markets may be reshaped

The simultaneous tightening of equity transfer restrictions by two leading AI companies is likely to become a turning point for the tokenized pre-IPO market. Previously, such products exploited three major gray areas: using SPV structures to circumvent direct transfer restrictions; leveraging 24/7 liquidity and high valuation expectations in crypto markets to generate speculative premiums; and exploiting jurisdictional arbitrage to evade securities law constraints in certain regions.

After the statement, these three supports are challenged. First, SPV has been explicitly excluded from officially recognized transfer channels — “tokenization” does not equal “legalization.” Second, the huge gap between implied secondary market valuation and actual financing valuation has become public, possibly causing funds to adopt a wait-and-see stance. Third, as SEC and CFTC jointly strengthen the delineation between “synthetic exposure vs. real ownership,” offshore platforms’ regulatory arbitrage space is gradually shrinking. Some analysts predict that the premium space for crypto pre-IPO products will further narrow.

However, this does not mean that equity tokenization will lose market value. The fundamental logic of asset tokenization remains valid — lowering entry barriers, increasing liquidity efficiency, and enabling 24/7 trading. But this incident profoundly reveals that legal authorization is an unshakable prerequisite for all tokenized equity transactions; without it, everything collapses to zero. Looking ahead, compliant tokenized equity products based on issuer authorization frameworks may accelerate replacing current gray models relying on SPV structures. For investors, identifying the legal structure of tokens is the key to assessing their value — if the underlying asset’s value stems from “shares held by an unauthorized SPV that could be invalidated at any time,” then regardless of the narrative, the true value is close to zero.

Summary

OpenAI and Anthropic’s synchronized tightening of equity transfer policies directly triggered a roughly 40% plunge in the prices of PreStocks tokens based on SPV structures. On the surface, this event appears as a price collapse, but it exposes deeper structural flaws in tokenized equity products: when the underlying SPV does not receive formal approval from the company, the economic value of on-chain tokens can be completely negated at the legal level. Low liquidity, inflated implied valuations, lack of audits, and regulatory vacuum together form a multi-layered risk matrix for such products. For investors, distinguishing “legally authorized vs. gray arbitrage” is the fundamental criterion for evaluating the value of any tokenized equity product. The future of the pre-IPO tokenized market may accelerate its bifurcation: compliant, authorized products could continue evolving, while gray products relying on SPV structures face systemic marginalization.

FAQ

Q1: What exactly is equity tokenization? How does it differ from directly holding stocks?

Equity tokenization involves packaging a company’s equity economic benefits into blockchain tokens for sale. In most such products, token holders do not directly own the company’s stock but hold a claim to the economic benefits of a specific SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle). Holding stock does not grant shareholder rights, such as voting or attending shareholder meetings. There is a fundamental legal distinction between the two.

Q2: Why did tokens plummet after OpenAI and Anthropic’s statement?

The core reason is the determination that “transferring SPV stocks without written approval from the board is invalid.” The token’s value depends on the legal legitimacy of the underlying stocks held by the SPV. Once the legitimacy is denied, the economic benefits associated with the tokens vanish, leading to mass sell-offs and price crashes.

Q3: Where are PreStocks’ liquidity risks reflected?

As of May 13, 2026, the liquidity pool for Anthropic-related assets on PreStocks held just over $333,000 in stablecoins, and Solana liquidity was just over $18,000. This starkly contrasts with the implied valuation of the tokens. When the market floods with sell orders, the actual available cash cannot support meaningful transactions. Early buyers, despite paper gains, face significant exit difficulties due to liquidity constraints.

Q4: What does this event mean for RWA tokenization?

It clarifies a key boundary: when the underlying assets are private equity, without issuer-approved transfer arrangements, the assets are effectively worthless. Tokenization is not a universal solution; legitimate tokenization must be based on explicit issuer authorization.

Q5: How should investors assess risks in equity tokenization products?

Consider six dimensions: whether the target company officially recognizes the tokenization arrangement; whether the underlying assets have been audited and verified by third parties; whether SPV transfers have been approved by the company’s board; the legal definition of the token (equity or economic claim); the actual funds in liquidity pools; and the applicable regulatory compliance framework. Lacking any of these aspects can expose the product to significant risks.