According to @gdb, Elon Musk told OpenAI negotiators he wanted OpenAI equity in order to accumulate $80B, and @gdb linked his sworn deposition for additional context, providing a primary-source account for traders evaluating governance risk in AI ventures (source: Greg Brockman post on X, Jan 17, 2026, https://twitter.com/gdb/status/2012328084985500005; source: deposition PDF via CourtListener, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.379.67.pdf). According to @gdb, he and Ilya Sutskever concluded they could not give Musk unilateral control because it was against OpenAI’s mission, which Musk found unacceptable, confirming a concrete governance conflict that traders can factor into control and key-man risk assessments (source: Greg Brockman post on X, Jan 17, 2026, https://twitter.com/gdb/status/2012328084985500005). According to @gdb, prior to this dispute Musk had created a for-profit entity named Open Artificial Intelligence Technologies, underscoring active pursuit of a for‑profit structure around OpenAI at that time and offering investors clarity on organizational intent and incentives (source: Greg Brockman post on X, Jan 17, 2026, https://twitter.com/gdb/status/2012328084985500005). According to @gdb, this first‑hand disclosure and attached deposition give verified detail on equity goals and control demands that can inform trading screens for AI‑exposed equities and AI‑themed crypto narratives, especially where governance concentration and founder control are material to valuation and sentiment (source: Greg Brockman post on X, Jan 17, 2026, https://twitter.com/gdb/status/2012328084985500005; source: deposition PDF, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.379.67.pdf).