> "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."
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.)
>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".
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).
>Are you going to claim that a GP of a fund has no financial interest in the fund, too?
We don't know either way. I've seen GP shares in the 100s of millions and I've seen GP shares that are notional $100. Just depends on the structuring. So from knowing he's GP the article can't reasonably conclude "he owned the OpenAI startup fund".
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."