Elon Musk OpenAI ICO 2018: Secret Call Notes Reveal Crypto Funding Plans
Secret internal call notes reveal that Elon Musk agreed to explore an ICO for OpenAI in early 2018. This discovery complicates his current legal battle over OpenAI's profit status.
He shook hands, but his motives were complex. Elon Musk once gave the green light for OpenAI to launch an ICO. Internal call notes from early 2018 show the billionaire agreed to explore a token sale alongside a for-profit transition—a move that starkly contrasts with his later public criticisms.
Elon Musk OpenAI ICO 2018: The Funding Struggle
According to reports on internal notes, Musk was actively involved in discussions to solve OpenAI's mounting compute costs. While he initially supported the idea of a token-based funding model to secure the organization's future, he eventually dropped the concept and exited the board later that year.
A New Layer in the Legal Battle
This revelation adds a significant twist to the ongoing legal and ideological battle between Musk and Sam Altman. Musk has frequently slammed OpenAI for abandoning its non-profit roots, but these documents suggest he was once open to the very profit-driven mechanisms he now criticizes.
This content is AI-generated based on source articles. While we strive for accuracy, errors may occur. We recommend verifying with the original source.
Related Articles
Cerebras files for IPO with a $20B OpenAI deal in hand. What does this mean for Nvidia's dominance, AI infrastructure investment, and the next wave of chip competition?
A man threw a Molotov cocktail at OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's home, motivated by hatred of AI. His document listed names and addresses of multiple AI executives. This isn't just a crime story.
SpaceX swung from $8B profit to a $5B loss in 2025, yet kept its 8,285 BTC position untouched. With an IPO looming, what does that signal about corporate treasury strategy?
OpenAI's 13-page policy blueprint proposes robot taxes, a public wealth fund, and a four-day workweek. Is this corporate responsibility — or regulatory capture in disguise?
Thoughts
Share your thoughts on this article
Sign in to join the conversation