Anthropic was founded in 2021 to ensure humanity can control AI and benefit from it in the long-term. As the frontier lab approaches its initial public offering, however, thereâÂÂs one class of humanity that is being shut out of control: anyone who buys its stock on public markets.
Complex structures that allow founders like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to control their public companies without owning most of them are nothing new in Silicon Valley. But AnthropicâÂÂs obsession with AI safety has resulted in a truly baroque style of corporate governance that will leave common shareholders with little say over most major decisions at the AI company, including who sits on its board.
First, Anthropic is a public benefit companyâÂÂa for-profit corporation legally allowed to weigh a public mission alongside profitâÂÂwith the goal of promoting AI safety. That status protects the boardâÂÂs ability to make decisions about AI safety that arenâÂÂt driven entirely by shareholder value without being sued by angry investors.
Right now, the board is chaired by Anthropic president Daniela Amodei and includes CEO Dario Amodei (her brother), Netflix cofounder Reed Hastings, former Microsoft and GM CFO Christopher Liddell, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan, and Spark Capital partner Yasmin Razavi. There is one vacancy on the board.
Second, Anthropic has allocated significant control of its board to a Long Term Benefit Trust (LTBT), an independent panel meant to keep the company focused on mission to benefit humanity. The trust owns a class of stock that gives it the ability to elect and remove a majority of the companyâÂÂs board, known as Class T directors. The LTBT is chaired by Neil Shah, a global health expert who was managing director at GiveWell, a nonprofit that ranks charities, and includes former Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke, national security expert Richard Fontaine, and Harvard physicist Christopher Stubbs. There is one vacancy on the LTBT right now. The existing members will themselves choose who fills it.
Third, AnthropicâÂÂs seven founders also jointly own a special class of stock that gives a majority of them an 50.1% of shareholder voting power, allowing them to elect three members of the board of directors. If, for whatever reason, thereâÂÂs no majority among the founders, only then are their shares voted in proportion with holders of common stock.
Finally, the board can put a check on the LTBT. When the LTBT nominates a âÂÂSpecifiedâ one of its four directors, or removes that director without cause (that is, without alleging misconduct), the boardâÂÂs nominating committee can decline to approve the move and throw the decision to the companyâÂÂs employees for a vote.
HereâÂÂs what all that looks like:

The dynamics of such a complex structure are hard to predict. WeâÂÂve already seen one notable instance where a similar structure was essentially overthrown: OpenAIâÂÂs so-called blip, when OpenAIâÂÂs board briefly fired CEO Sam Altman over concerns that he was not being candid with them. Thanks to the loyalty of the companyâÂÂs employees to Altman, the board backed down, reinstated him, and a new governance structure was put in place. AnthropicâÂÂs structure seems to formalize that kind of employee power.
At Anthropic, cracks in the foundersâ unified front could lead to common shareholders having more say than expected, while employees can overrule the LTBT on board seats if they back the board over the assembled luminaries.
The foundersâ control wonâÂÂt last forever: Ten years after the IPO, the founders can choose to end their control of the company, or their control will end automatically when fewer than three of them remain. At that point, the LTBT will continue until 85% of common shareholders vote to end it, or it decides to step down with approval from the board.
If and when neither special class of shareholder exists any moreâÂÂhopefully not because of an AI-driven catastropheâÂÂcommon shareholders finally get control.
Topics
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesnâÂÂt affect our editorial independence.
