4 ms·

I don't think there's anything new here: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-running-openais-startup-fund-2024-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-runni

I don't think there's anything new here: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-running-openais-startup-fund-2024-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-running-openais-start... FTA: > "Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI startup fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company," she said. Previously: > "Jacob Vespers does not exist to our knowledge," Madhav Dutt, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said. When asked how this individual came to be listed as in control of the company's Startup Fund, Dutt said that the documents filed with the California Secretary of State were faked. > "The document itself is not legitimate," Dutt told Business Insider. "It's completely fabricated." Dutt declined to elaborate on how exactly fabricated documents came to be filed with the state of California, he would only say repeatedly that the documents were "illegitimate."

NotSammyHagar 2y ago
https://archive.is/qAklm https://archive.is/qAklm
jph00 2y ago
> * I don't think there's anything new here* The information about lying to the board about it is new, AFAIK.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Lying to the board was the reason given for his firing even at the time. They just declined to elaborate back then.
Havoc 2y ago
Once again he was GP of the startup fund, not an LP. (At least not to my knowledge) Unless there was some sort of carry or other compensation I’d say it’s pretty fair to describe that as not owned. A bit like a trustee wouldn’t claim to own the trust fund. The beneficiaries do
- Nevermark 2y ago
  So why did he carefully not say that. To the board, FFS. A trustee who wasn't playing games would simply say they were the trustee.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  A GP is a partner and as such has an financial interest in the success of the fund. In fact, they have a greater financial exposure than LPs, since they have unlimited liability for the partnership’s obligations (how much upside they have depends on the partnership agreement, its possible that LPs have all of that and a GP that's not also an LP would not — but just having downside exposure is still a serious financial interest.)
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    you are right, but the GP does have usually some kind of interest. Usually 1%. Yes, its tiny, but its there.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    >GP is a partner and as such has an financial interest in the success of the fund Sure there will be some stake attached to GP, that may be a national dollar or it may be more depending on structuring. We don't know either way. My point is based on knowing nothing more than he is a GP we can't conclude "he owned the OpenAI startup fund" which is verbatim what is being claimed in the article and what I objected to. >how much upside they have depends on the partnership agreemen ...right which is what I meant with "some sort of carry or other compensation".
- morgante 2y ago
  1. Why do you assume he wouldn't receive carry? Carry is standard so the presumption should be that he receives carry unless otherwise clarified. 2. GP commitments are also common. LPs want GPs to have "skin in the game" and I think it's absolutely reasonable to claim the GP "owns" the fund (just not as a sole owner).
- FireBeyond 2y ago
smarm52 2y ago
A lot of allegations, but no evidence. Seems like the article is just there to drive clicks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also the archive for that article: https://archive.ph/qAklm https://archive.ph/qAklm
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

NotSammyHagar 2y ago

https://archive.is/qAklm https://archive.is/qAklm

jph00 2y ago

> * I don't think there's anything new here* The information about lying to the board about it is new, AFAIK.

adastra22 2y ago
Lying to the board was the reason given for his firing even at the time. They just declined to elaborate back then.

Havoc 2y ago

Once again he was GP of the startup fund, not an LP. (At least not to my knowledge) Unless there was some sort of carry or other compensation I’d say it’s pretty fair to describe that as not owned. A bit like a trustee wouldn’t claim to own the trust fund. The beneficiaries do

Nevermark 2y ago
So why did he carefully not say that. To the board, FFS. A trustee who wasn't playing games would simply say they were the trustee.
dragonwriter 2y ago
A GP is a partner and as such has an financial interest in the success of the fund. In fact, they have a greater financial exposure than LPs, since they have unlimited liability for the partnership’s obligations (how much upside they have depends on the partnership agreement, its possible that LPs have all of that and a GP that's not also an LP would not — but just having downside exposure is still a serious financial interest.)
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  you are right, but the GP does have usually some kind of interest. Usually 1%. Yes, its tiny, but its there.
- Havoc 2y ago
  >GP is a partner and as such has an financial interest in the success of the fund Sure there will be some stake attached to GP, that may be a national dollar or it may be more depending on structuring. We don't know either way. My point is based on knowing nothing more than he is a GP we can't conclude "he owned the OpenAI startup fund" which is verbatim what is being claimed in the article and what I objected to. >how much upside they have depends on the partnership agreemen ...right which is what I meant with "some sort of carry or other compensation".
morgante 2y ago
1. Why do you assume he wouldn't receive carry? Carry is standard so the presumption should be that he receives carry unless otherwise clarified. 2. GP commitments are also common. LPs want GPs to have "skin in the game" and I think it's absolutely reasonable to claim the GP "owns" the fund (just not as a sole owner).
FireBeyond 2y ago

smarm52 2y ago

A lot of allegations, but no evidence. Seems like the article is just there to drive clicks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also the archive for that article: https://archive.ph/qAklm https://archive.ph/qAklm

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]