On-Chain Pre-IPO Deep Dive: Why Are SpaceX and OpenAI’s Pricing Powers Moving On-Chain?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
On-Chain Pre-IPO Deep Dive: Why Are SpaceX and OpenAI’s Pricing Powers Moving On-Chain?
“Many major events that reshape the world and markets now occur over weekends, which is a significant advantage for RWA perpetual contracts that support 24/7 trading.”
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated by TechFlow
Guest: Dio Casares, Founder of Patagon
Host: Laura Shin
Podcast Source: Unchaind
Original Title: Why SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic Now Trade Onchain
Air Date: May 22, 2026
Key Takeaways
In this latest episode, Dio Casares and Laura Shin delve into how pre-IPO price discovery is gradually migrating onto blockchains. From the newly launched SpaceX pre-IPO perpetuals on Hyperliquid to secondary-market trading of Anthropic and OpenAI shares, they analyze this trend in depth. They also discuss Nasdaq Private Market’s new partnership with Polymarket—and its potential implications for the future of private equity.
Highlights of Key Insights
Why onchain pre-IPO markets are suddenly heating up
- “A helpful way for crypto-native audiences to understand pre-IPO perpetuals is to view them as the crypto equivalent of pre-market trading. Many will recall that Hyperliquid was highly aggressive in launching pre-markets for numerous altcoins—leading those markets to attract massive trading volume and eventually become where most pre-market activity occurs.”
- “These pre-IPO perpetuals launch shortly before a planned IPO or other key event… Because they go live so close to the event itself, they draw more trading volume and greater participation. You can think of them as futures contracts nearing settlement—not like Ventuals’ longer-dated perpetuals, whose final settlement timing remains unclear.”
Why OpenAI and Anthropic are denying secondary-market trades
- “First, they aim to instill genuine fear, discouraging investment in secondary markets. The essence of secondary-market trading is that someone buys shares—but the company or its employees receive no capital from those transactions. These AI firms, bluntly put, are capital-intensive. They absorb enormous sums of cash and then deploy—or burn—billions of dollars.”
- “Any action hindering fundraising by these capital-intensive ‘cash incinerators’—especially just before entering an exceptionally competitive IPO phase—is viewed as a major problem… All of them are absorbing as much capital as possible. Thus, restricting secondary markets ahead of their IPOs is a critical step for them, channeling more supply and demand toward their own primary funding rounds.”
- “Second is liability. Typically, when a company deems a transaction credible—or approves it—it assumes responsibility for executing that transaction… When SPVs begin winding down and closing around IPO time, complex waterfall issues emerge. For these companies—whether due to legal liability or simply aversion to hassle—they want nothing to do with such matters. No one wants to manage 1,000 separate cases.”
What onchain solutions actually address
- “In crypto, derivatives markets make more sense than spot markets—primarily due to U.S. regulation. In the U.S., these private shares typically carry a ~6-month holding period… Without a system enforcing that 6-month lock-up, you risk invalidating the regulatory exemptions these shares rely on—and triggering fines and other complications.”
- “Massive spot-market trading volume may not align with these companies’ interests, as it competes directly with their primary rounds. They don’t want price discovery happening this way—it could subject them to adverse selection during fundraising. A company might say: ‘We know you’re planning to tokenize this, so we won’t partner with you.’”
- “With tokenized products, if an SPV makes an error—or any legal issue arises—or fund structuring is flawed—the downstream consequences could be catastrophic. Derivatives carry risks too—like ADL or price spikes—but those are market risks, not cases where someone botches a contract and everyone loses their money. That’s why I’m more bullish on the perp side.”
Are private giants already trading like public companies?
- “I agree to some extent: these companies truly have record-breaking participation. If you break down the capital invested pre-IPO, participants number in the thousands—or even tens of thousands. That’s atypical for private companies.”
- “But to my knowledge, they haven’t actively promoted secondary markets—i.e., encouraged continued buying and selling post-investment. Instead, they’ve consistently made clear to investors: ‘If you invest, hold until IPO or another liquidity event.’”
Ways—and risks—of getting in before IPO
- “These are late-stage companies. Once you enter second- or third-layer structures, you’re playing a dangerous legal game of ‘hot potato’ with those shares—something most people should avoid.”
- “Here’s a real risk: many banks and brokers may say, ‘We don’t know if this trade is valid, so we can’t let you sell these shares.’… If an SPV’s main bank account sits at JPMorgan—and JPMorgan says, ‘We can’t help you sell these shares’—they suddenly face a race against time: opening a new account (which isn’t easy), then transferring shares to another broker’s account.”
- “Another scenario: someone says, ‘I previously agreed to sell and deliver these to you—but now the trades are deemed invalid, so I’ll only refund your money.’ This will likely trigger litigation in most cases. The defendant may ultimately lose—but you still must sue them. So depending on the instrument and structure, many distinct risks arise.”
Legal boundaries: Robinhood, FTX, and structural differences
- “Whether these products violate securities law—and whether companies like OpenAI can truly stop platforms like Robinhood from offering them—remains a legal gray area. Regardless, these products haven’t attracted significant attention yet—largely because they aren’t truly liquid assets.”
- “The batch of Anthropic shares held by FTX—and many of FTX’s other shares and assets—were typically sold free of encumbrances. That is, Anthropic’s right of first refusal (ROFR) was fully waived, transfer restrictions were lifted, and all other limitations removed.”
- “If you hold Anthropic shares tied to FTX claims—that is, shares FTX originally purchased—you’re arguably among the safest holders outside of the company’s approved direct investors, thanks to a distinct legal status attached to those shares.”
Player landscape in the private secondary market
- “On the perpetual side, there’s Trade.xyz (HIP-3); Ventuals, an early protocol also operating under HIP-3; and newer entrants like Entropy—built by a friend of mine—which will also be HIP-3. They’ll offer pre-market access slightly earlier than Trade.xyz. You’ll see these markets broadly coalesce around Hyperliquid.”
- “I find Solana more retail-oriented—and for some reason, people are more willing to experiment there. There’s also substantial overlap between crypto and AI… Many are comfortable taking high risk, abundant capital exists, and users are already accustomed to operating on Solana. They prefer investing in such projects without needing to open bank accounts, complete cumbersome procedures, or rely on personal connections to secure direct share allocations—as required in traditional finance.”
Patagon’s positioning and onchain boundaries
- “We previously reviewed perpetuals for private markets, considering whether to advise clients: ‘If you’re thinking about hedging pre-IPO exposure—even though that’s itself somewhat gray—you might consider perpetuals instead of setups like IBKR…’ We don’t want to anger companies whose shareholder registers we appear on. Launching tokenized versions of their stock—or launching pre-IPO markets, especially very early ones—is an easy way to provoke serious ire. People may forget Anthropic maintains a de facto ‘don’t touch these people’ list. For us, that would land us squarely on such a list—so we won’t do it.”
Why pre-IPO perpetuals may keep expanding
- “Many world- and market-changing events now occur over weekends—a huge advantage for RWA perpetuals, which trade 24/7. Pre-IPO perpetuals benefit similarly. Once converted, they become standard RWA perpetuals.”
- “I’m uncertain how the pre-IPO market will evolve—but this year features a historically large number of IPOs. SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are all targeting valuations exceeding $1 trillion—an unprecedented convergence… Now is indeed an ideal moment for pre-IPO perpetuals to gain broader attention.”
Why Onchain Pre-IPO Markets Are Suddenly Heating Up
Host Laura Shin: This week—or more precisely, over the past few weeks—there’s been significant activity in pre-IPO markets, especially onchain. This week, Hyperliquid launched a major new product: SpaceX pre-IPO perpetuals. Around the same time, Polymarket announced a new class of event contracts enabling bets on unicorn valuations, IPO dates, secondary-market pricing, etc.—in partnership with Nasdaq Private Market. Last week, Anthropic and OpenAI invalidated batches of secondary-market share trades, sparking widespread controversy.
According to Allium Research, Hyperliquid’s pre-IPO activity scaled from ~$3 million in February to $44 million just days ago. What’s driving this sudden surge?
Dio Casares:
I think timing is highly strategic. A helpful way for crypto-native audiences to understand pre-IPO perpetuals is to view them as the crypto equivalent of pre-market trading. Many will recall that Hyperliquid was highly aggressive in launching pre-markets for numerous altcoins—leading those markets to attract massive trading volume and eventually become where most pre-market activity occurs.
Once tokens officially launch, their opening prices usually closely match pre-market levels. And once they transition into standard perpetuals backed by normal oracles, Hyperliquid retains most of that volume.
So what we’re seeing with Cerebras and now SpaceX is that these pre-IPO perpetuals launch shortly before a planned IPO or key event. I believe the SpaceX milestone falls around mid-June—just three to four weeks away. Because they launch so close to the event itself, they attract more trading volume and broader participation. You can think of them as futures contracts nearing settlement—not like Ventuals’ longer-dated perpetuals, whose final settlement timing remains unclear.
Why OpenAI and Anthropic Are Denying Secondary-Market Trades
Host Laura Shin: In my initial question, I mentioned several distinct activities: SpaceX pre-IPO perpetuals, Polymarket’s announcement, and the Anthropic/OpenAI incidents—some offchain, some onchain. They represent different zones—or stages—within this market. How would you characterize what each news item signifies?
Dio Casares:
When OpenAI and Anthropic publicly declare “we won’t recognize these trades,” two core reasons underlie their stance.
First, they aim to instill genuine fear, discouraging investment in secondary markets. Because the essence of secondary-market trading is that someone buys shares—but the company or its employees receive no capital from those transactions. These AI firms, bluntly put, are capital-intensive. They absorb enormous sums of cash and then deploy—or burn—billions of dollars.
Any action hindering fundraising by these capital-intensive ‘cash incinerators’—especially just before entering an exceptionally competitive IPO phase—is viewed as a major problem. Currently, SpaceX is expected to go public first, followed by Anthropic, then OpenAI. These companies are maximizing capital inflows. Thus, restricting secondary markets ahead of their IPOs is a critical step for them, channeling more supply and demand toward their own primary funding rounds.
Second is liability. Typically, when a company deems a transaction credible—or approves it—it assumes responsibility for executing that transaction. That means ensuring, on the company’s equity ledger, that the buyer actually receives shares at IPO—or before.
Imagine hundreds—or even thousands—of SPVs (Special Purpose Vehicles) and other entities in the market, potentially facing litigation with highly complex structures. As these SPVs wind down and close around IPO time, numerous waterfall issues arise. For these companies—whether due to legal liability or simple aversion to hassle—they want nothing to do with such matters. No one wants to manage 1,000 separate cases.
So they’re loudly declaring: “This isn’t our problem. If you’re not in the approved cohort, we can’t help you.” They’re stating this clearly before IPO-related problems surface. In short, this both maximizes the cash they raise and minimizes their legal liability.
What Onchain Solutions Actually Address
Host Laura Shin: We’ve touched briefly on the problems in this market—and why some believe going onchain solves them. Could you specifically outline what buyers and sellers hope to solve by moving onchain?
Dio Casares:
Going onchain splits into two markets: derivatives and spot. Derivatives offer many advantages. Like most derivatives, they first serve as hedging tools. Many users I know treat this market as a way to hedge existing spot positions—or direct investments they already hold.
I believe derivatives markets make more sense than spot markets in crypto—primarily due to U.S. regulation. In the U.S., these private shares typically carry a ~6-month holding period. Workarounds may exist, but the baseline is ~6 months. Without a system enforcing that 6-month lock-up, you risk invalidating the regulatory exemptions these shares rely on—and triggering fines and other complications.
So once something is tokenized—if it represents an ownership stake in these companies—U.S. regulators can easily claim it violates relevant rules. I see this as a major hurdle for many tokenized products.
Another issue circles back to our earlier point: massive spot-market trading volume may not align with these companies’ interests, as it competes directly with their primary rounds. They don’t want price discovery happening this way—it could subject them to adverse selection during fundraising. A company might say: “We know you’re planning to tokenize this, so we won’t partner with you.”
By contrast, derivatives are easier to handle. A family office—or individual investor—can hedge exposure or increase it, if desired. Here, you avoid the same key-person risk.
But with tokenized products, if an SPV errs—or any legal issue arises—or fund structuring is flawed—the downstream consequences could be catastrophic. Derivatives carry risks too—like ADL or price spikes—but those are market risks, not cases where someone botches a contract and everyone loses their money. That’s why I’m more bullish on the perp side.
Host Laura Shin: Right—it’s more like market risk. People accept that. But the alternative feels like one person messing up—and everyone paying the price. That’s unacceptable to many.
Are Private Giants Already Trading Like Public Companies?
Host Laura Shin: One critique I’ve seen argues these pre-IPO issues stem partly from unicorns staying private for extended periods. This has been discussed for years—but in a sense, they’re almost pretending to remain private while allowing gray-market activity to swirl around them. The result is that far more people hold some form of ownership—compared to truly strict private companies. So, in effect, they’re already quasi-public companies. Do you agree?
Dio Casares:
I agree to some extent: these companies truly have record-breaking participation. If you break down the capital invested pre-IPO, participants number in the thousands—or even tens of thousands. That’s atypical for private companies.
But to my knowledge, they haven’t actively promoted secondary markets—i.e., encouraged continued buying and selling post-investment. Instead, they’ve consistently made clear to investors: “If you invest, hold until IPO or another liquidity event.”
So I don’t think it’s entirely fair to call them “public companies masquerading as private.” Buying these shares remains far harder. Going public also brings benefits—like reduced fraud risk. Still, it’s true they’ve attracted record numbers of investors and capital at very early stages.
Ways—and Risks—of Getting in Before IPO
Host Laura Shin: You previously noted perpetuals have certain advantages. Yet people clearly have reasons to try investing pre-IPO. What options exist—and what risks accompany each instrument or exposure?
Dio Casares:
The most obvious reason is earlier entry often means better pricing. Suppose we’d discussed Anthropic two years ago—its valuation was likely ~$8 billion. At its current round, that’s over a 10x difference—not counting dilution.
So investors certainly have incentive to enter earlier and secure better multiples. For these late-stage companies, the cleanest path is finding someone with access to primary rounds—and investing via SPV or co-investment.
Co-investments differ from SPVs. For example, some large foundations do co-investments: they might first invest $1 billion through their fund, then allow LPs to directly invest another $100 million in the company. If you can pull that off, it’s likely the cleanest way to invest.
If not, seek out SPV operators—or those who can facilitate direct participation. These are late-stage companies. Once you enter second- or third-layer structures, you’re playing a dangerous legal game of ‘hot potato’—a metaphor describing complex legal issues, responsibilities, or potential liabilities. In legal contexts, “legal hot potato” often refers to high-risk or legally uncertain situations that parties repeatedly pass along to avoid bearing responsibility or loss. Most people should avoid this.
Host Laura Shin: What problems arise here?
Dio Casares:
There are many granular issues. For instance, Anthropic and OpenAI are now loudly declaring these trades aren’t legal or valid.
Consider a waterfall distribution structure: someone currently holds company shares but promises to transfer them to an SPV—or the SPV itself holds shares, owing obligations to a second-tier entity, which in turn owes obligations to a third tier. If this person or SPV attempts to deposit shares into a bank or broker account—especially at IPO onset—their compliance team will likely ask: “What type of transaction is this? Sale? Gift? Transfer? If it’s a sale, show me the documentation.”
Here’s a real risk: many banks and brokers may say, “We don’t know if this trade is valid, so we can’t let you sell these shares.”
In most cases, DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation) classifies shares as either restricted or non-restricted. Many large brokers and banks still raise questions about these shares—but some mid-sized institutions may say: “These aren’t restricted shares, so my risk is low—I’ll permit the operation.”
But if an SPV’s primary bank account sits at JPMorgan—and JPMorgan says, “We can’t help you sell these shares”—they suddenly face a race against time: opening a new account (which isn’t easy), then transferring shares to another broker’s account. From an AML perspective, this looks terrible—because the counterparty asks: “Why did you place them there initially, only to move them to us now? Clearly, something went wrong there.”
This is procedural risk. Another scenario: someone says, “I previously agreed to sell and deliver these to you—but now the trades are deemed invalid, so I’ll only refund your money.” This will likely trigger litigation in most cases. The defendant may ultimately lose—but you still must sue them. So depending on the instrument and structure, many distinct risks arise.
Host Laura Shin: Right—structure is critical. Even in your final example, where the counterparty offers a refund, you must assume they actually have the funds.
Dio Casares:
Tail risk—outright fraud—also exists. For instance, someone shows you fake documents, then vanishes with the money. At that point, your options are extremely limited.
Robinhood, FTX, and Legal Boundaries Across Structures
Host Laura Shin: Please explain Robinhood’s tokenized stock offering. It involves OpenAI and SpaceX—and we saw OpenAI quickly deny it. But I suspect its structure is likely permissible. Where does it sit in this landscape?
Dio Casares:
My understanding is these products resemble trust-style offerings. Whether they violate securities law—and whether companies like OpenAI can truly prevent platforms like Robinhood from offering them—remains a legal gray area.
Regardless, these products haven’t drawn major attention yet—largely because they aren’t truly liquid assets. A trust company can place a batch of shares into trust, and users can trade tokens representing those shares—but users cannot redeem corresponding shares until a major liquidity event occurs.
For small investors, this approach may lower barriers to entry. But for large investors, it’s riskier—you must fully rely on market confidence in the token’s value. We’ve seen markets abruptly downgrade token valuations after announcements. So this investment vehicle carries inherent risk.
Host Laura Shin: FTX clearly holds some Anthropic shares—where does that fit? I imagine it’s a rare outlier—but I’d like to hear its place in this ecosystem.
Dio Casares:
Bankruptcy courts, in a sense, operate like “majority-rules” venues. Often, it’s less about bankruptcy law itself—and more about what the court and participants deem fair.
The batch of Anthropic shares held by FTX—and many of FTX’s other shares and assets—were typically sold free of encumbrances. That is, Anthropic’s right of first refusal (ROFR) was fully waived, transfer restrictions were lifted, and all other limitations removed.
Certainly, one argument holds that such waivers may not extend to subsequent transfers beyond the original transaction. That argument can be raised—but may be hard to win. Because if you claim bankruptcy assets can’t be treated as fully valuable in future sales, you set a terrible precedent affecting all future bankruptcy cases.
So, if you hold Anthropic shares tied to FTX claims—that is, shares FTX originally purchased—you’re arguably among the safest holders outside of the company’s approved direct investors, thanks to a distinct legal status attached to those shares.
Player Landscape in the Private Secondary Market
Host Laura Shin: I know some players in the private secondary market aren’t necessarily crypto-native—while others are blockchain-based. Can you map the key players for us? I suspect some operate closer to the “gray zone” than others.
Dio Casares:
The private secondary market hosts many player types. Setter, for example, is a relatively low-profile but massive secondary-market broker. Its scope is broad—from fund-share transfers to direct company-share allocations. For instance, if you invested in a Paradigm fund but want to sell your share before capital return, you can transact via Setter. Per its website, it’s executed $400 billion in trading volume—an astonishing figure confirming it’s among the largest players.
Other well-known names include Forge and Hiive. Many know them for simpler onboarding, rich market data, and solid volume—though their scale pales next to Setter’s.
Beyond them, many smaller and mid-sized firms operate—mostly in spot markets—helping investors buy/sell actual shares.
On the perpetual side: Trade.xyz (HIP-3); Ventuals, an early protocol also HIP-3; and newer entrants like Entropy—built by a friend of mine—which will also be HIP-3. They’ll offer pre-market access slightly earlier than Trade.xyz. You’ll see these markets broadly coalesce around Hyperliquid.
On the tokenization side, several players operate—many on Solana, not Ethereum. These firms typically charge a one-time 20% fee—a very high industry benchmark—plus 20% performance fees on token trades.
By contrast, derivatives markets earn via trading fees. So interesting business-model differences emerge: spot players essentially flip shares to retail investors, while derivatives firms earn by facilitating trades.
Host Laura Shin: Sounds like they target different audiences. Why do these activities cluster more on Solana than Ethereum?
Dio Casares:
I find Solana more retail-oriented—and for some reason, people are more willing to experiment there. There’s also substantial overlap between crypto and AI—somewhere I’m living proof.
So many embrace high risk, abundant capital exists, and users are already accustomed to operating on Solana. They prefer investing in such projects without needing to open bank accounts, complete cumbersome procedures, or rely on personal connections to secure direct share allocations—as required in traditional finance. Ultimately, project teams go where the capital is.
Patagon’s Positioning and Onchain Boundaries
Host Laura Shin: Tell us about your business. You’re clearly deeply engaged in this space—what exactly does Patagon do in the secondary market?
Dio Casares:
We’re like a new kind of private bank—focused on helping people access private-market deals. We’ve done Anthropic, xAI, Cohere, pre-IPO Circle, Kraken, Fluidstack, and many others.
Generally, we operate as exempt advisors. We structure deals as funds and assist with filings—but we’re not yet registered investment advisors, since our AUM hasn’t hit $150 million directly. That means partnering with us involves fewer hurdles than working with certain RIAs.
We’re also expanding to let people invest in commodity trades—for example, if you have a directional view on Argentine copper mines, you should be able to invest in a real, compliant, locally embedded project. That’s a key part of our platform. We rigorously vet nearly all deals—because if anything goes wrong, our reputation bears the cost.
We’ve handled complex trades too—like pre-IPO Circle investments. That was tricky, given our involvement so close to IPO.
Now, we’re extending this capability to more tangible assets—and piloting banking accounts, crypto custody, etc. Broadly, we help people enter these deals, structure them as funds, and charge tiered fund fees based on deal size and difficulty accessing the company.
Host Laura Shin: So your business doesn’t currently involve onchain components?
Dio Casares:
No. We previously reviewed perpetuals for private markets, assessing whether to advise clients: “If you’re thinking about hedging pre-IPO exposure—even though that’s itself somewhat gray—you might consider perpetuals instead of setups like IBKR…”
Frankly, we’ve received client questions like: “Should I hedge using perpetuals—or short via IBKR?” That’s our level of engagement. We may support Entropy’s market efforts—they’ll attempt pre-market access slightly earlier than Trade.xyz, as I understand it. But this is definitely not core to our business.
The reason: we don’t want to anger companies whose shareholder registers we appear on. Launching tokenized versions of their stock—or launching pre-IPO markets, especially very early ones—is an easy way to provoke serious ire. People may forget Anthropic maintains a de facto “don’t touch these people” list. For us, that would land us squarely on such a list—so we won’t do it.
Why Pre-IPO Perpetuals May Keep Expanding
Host Laura Shin: How do you see the private-market’s future—especially its blockchain-integrated aspects?
Dio Casares:
We’re at an ideal inflection point. Overall, Hyperliquid is rapidly rising—and pre-IPO markets are evolving alongside it.
Many world- and market-changing events now occur over weekends—a huge advantage for RWA perpetuals, which trade 24/7. Pre-IPO perpetuals benefit similarly. Once converted, they become standard RWA perpetuals.
Hyperliquid previously used pre-market perpetuals as a loss leader—willing to lose money early to attract users and build market share, paving the way for future profits. I expect more platforms to adopt this strategy.
I’m uncertain how the pre-IPO market will evolve—but this year features a historically large number of IPOs. SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are all targeting valuations exceeding $1 trillion—an unprecedented convergence. Not to mention many others worth naming.
So, now is indeed an ideal moment for pre-IPO perpetuals to gain broader attention. Cerebras is a great example—and if the SpaceX perpetual settles smoothly, trading volume for Anthropic and OpenAI contracts will almost certainly rise.
You’ll see many exchange providers compete to cover these pre-IPO markets—so they can dominate trading volume once those markets convert to standard markets. That will be fascinating.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
