Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, arrives for a bipartisan Artificial Intelligence (AI) Insight Forum for all U.S. senators hosted by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., September 13, 2023.
Leah Millis | Reuters
OpenAI’s unusual company structure weakened Sam Altman’s position as CEO and left him open to surprise on Friday when he was quickly ousted from the company.
It’s rare to see founders forced out of a firm they helped co-found. At Uber, for example, founder Travis Kalanick was forced out only after a series of reports on privacy issues and allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment at the ride-sharing company.
But Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman, who also left OpenAI Friday, didn’t have the power that Kalanick had.
“I have no equity in OpenAI,” Altman said in a May Senate hearing on A.I. Senator John Kennedy’s reaction offered some foreshadowing.
“You need a lawyer or an agent,” Kennedy said in a now-prescient joke.
The structure of the company helps explain how he was left in a vulnerable position that, as he said on Saturday, left him feeling “a little screwed.”
OpenAI’s capped profit structure
The easiest way to think of OpenAI’s structure is to picture a waterfall. The board of directors sits at the top. OpenAI Global, the capped-profit company in which Microsoft invested billions and of which Sam Altman had become the global face, sits at the bottom. There’s some stuff in the middle.
So let’s start at the very top of the waterfall. OpenAI’s board of directors – the ultimate decision body and the group responsible for pushing Altman out – controls OpenAI’s 501(c)(3) charity, OpenAI Inc. That charity is the nonprofit of which you may be aware. It was established to “ensure that safe artificial general intelligence is developed and benefits all of humanity.”
The company’s website says the nonprofit’s charter takes “precedence over any obligation to generate a profit.” In other words, the nonprofit is the priority, while the capped-profit Open AI Global subsidiary is not.
There’s a holding company and another LLC called OpenAI GP, which both give the board ownership or control over OpenAI Global. Again, that’s the company Microsoft invested in. It’s the one you hear about in the news when Altman talks about ChatGPT developments and whatnot. What’s important here is that OpenAI Global had no control. It was the one controlled or owned by all of the other entities in various ways.
So now you’re probably wondering — why have a for-profit company at the bottom of a corporate structure if everything’s just going to be run by a nonprofit? There’s a reason for that, too.
Limited returns
OpenAI added its capped profit OpenAI Global subsidiary in 2019. The shift was prompted by several things, including a desire to attract top employees and investors with “startup-like equity.”
Remember, if your ultimate goal is to ensure the safe use of AI, you’re going to want to bring on some really smart people. And that’s tough when every big company on the market is willing to pay them top dollar to work. So if you’re OpenAI, you need incentives.
Part of that shift to a for-profit model meant reassessing how OpenAI rewarded those employees and investors who gambled on the company. The company settled on a capped-profit approach. It limited the “multiple” that investors could make by sending cash OpenAI’s way.
At the time, the profit cap was set at 100x of a first-round backer’s investment. In plain language, if investors put in $1, even if OpenAI was making billions of dollars in profit, that investor would be limited to $100 in total direct profit. It would still be a sizeable return, but not unlimited.
But remember, the core mission of the nonprofit is to control the development of artificial general intelligence. And all investors and employees are subject to that mission above anything else, including the for-profit company.
OK, so we have a nonprofit with a business that makes profits in order to attract top talent. How does Altman fit in here and how’d he get ousted?
Sam Altman’s missing equity
Altman had a board seat and was the best-known OpenAI personality. Aside from a small investment through a YCombinator fund (Altman was formerly its president), he doesn’t have any equity in the company. And that meant he didn’t have much control if anything turned against him.
He even joked about it Friday evening: “If I start going off, the OpenAI board should go after me for the full value of my shares.”
In fact, it reportedly worried some investors that Altman didn’t have ownership in the company he helped co-found, despite Altman’s public pronouncements that he was committed to OpenAI because he loved the work.
Most founders at later-stage companies take advantage of a dual-class share structure. Two tiers of shares are created — a set of shares for venture investors and the general public, if the company makes it to an IPO, and a more powerful set of shares reserved for founders or, in some cases, major investors.
CEOs and founders use dual-class share structures to protect themselves from losing control of their company. The rights assigned to these shareholders vary, but they often include outsize voting power, guaranteed board seats, or other governance provisions that make it hard for a board to topple them even if a company goes public. Some companies, like Google, even have three classes of shares, for its founders, employees, and investors.
Altman didn’t have those protections. Brockman, the former OpenAI president, said that Altman found out he was “being fired” in a virtual meeting Friday noon. Altman’s only heads up, Brockman said on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, was a text from OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever a day before.
Investors like to back visionary founders. Some, like Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, have centered their investment theses around the idea. Not having equity in the company could have been perceived as reducing Altman’s “skin in the game,” so to speak. But it also meant that Altman, lacking those protections, was open to a boardroom coup.
At Uber, five major investors demanded Kalanick’s departure immediately, including one of the company’s largest shareholders Benchmark, after months of negative reports on workplace culture and other controversies. OpenAI, by contrast, hasn’t seen a similar storyline emerge. Altman is a divisive figure, and many critics have worried about the impact OpenAI’s ultimate goal — artificial general intelligence, or AGI — would have for humanity.
OpenAI’s small board lacks the experience that would be expected from a company of its size and importance. None of its largest backers, not even Microsoft, have board seats. Until Altman and Brockman’s departure, it was composed of three outside directors and three OpenAI executives.
Brockman wasn’t involved in Altman’s firing, meaning that every outside director and Sutskever would have had to all vote to fire Altman. With no allies on the six-person board, it was a mathematical impossibility that Altman could win.
It isn’t clear what comes next for Altman or OpenAI. Litigation is possible, given the apparently swift nature of his departure. Some of Silicon Valley’s most influential law firms have represented OpenAI or its investors in various deals, and any courthouse proceedings will likely be closely watched.
Xpeng CEO He Xiaopeng speaks to reporters at the electric carmaker’s stand at the IAA auto show in Munich, Germany on September 8, 2025.
Arjun Kharpal | CNBC
Germany this week played host to one of the world’s biggest auto shows — but in the heartland of Europe’s auto industry, it was buzzy Chinese electric car companies looking to outshine some of the region’s biggest brands on their home turf.
The IAA Mobility conference in Munich was packed full of companies with huge stands showing off their latest cars and technology. Among some of the biggest displays were those from Chinese electric car companies, underscoring their ambitions to expand beyond China.
Europe has become a focal point for the Asian firms. It’s a market where the traditional automakers are seen to be lagging in the development of electric vehicles, even as they ramp up releases of new cars. At the same time, Tesla, which was for so long seen as the electric vehicle market leader, has seen sales decline in the region.
Despite Chinese EV makers facing tariffs from the European Union, players from the world’s second-largest economy have responded to the ramping up of competition by setting aggressive sales and expansion targets.
“The current growth of Xpeng globally is faster than we have expected,” He Xiaopeng, the CEO of Xpeng told CNBC in an interview this week.
Aggressive expansion plans
Chinese carmakers who spoke to CNBC at the IAA show signaled their ambitious expansion plans.
Xpeng’s He said in an interview that the company is looking to launch its mass-market Mona series in Europe next year. In China, Xpeng’s Mona cars start at the equivalent of just under $17,000. Bringing this to Europe would add some serious price competition.
Meanwhile, Guangzhou Automobile Group (GAC) is targeting rapid growth of its sales in Europe. Wei Haigang, president of GAC International, told CNBC that the company aims to sell around 3,000 cars in Europe this year and at least 50,000 units by 2027. GAC also announced plans to bring two EVs — the Aion V and Aion UT — to Europe. Leapmotor was also in attendance with their own stand.
There are signs that Chinese players have made early in roads into Europe. The market share of Chinese car brands in Europe nearly doubled in the first half of the year versus the same period in 2024, though it still remains low at just over 5%, according to Jato Dynamics.
“The significant presence of Chinese electric vehicle (EV) makers at the IAA Mobility, signals their growing ambitions and confidence in the European market,” Murtuza Ali, senior analyst at Counterpoint Research, told CNBC.
Tech and gadgets in focus
Many of the Chinese car firms have positioned themselves as technology companies, much like Tesla, and their cars highlight that.
Many of the electric vehicles have big screens equipped with flashy interfaces and voice assistants. And in a bid to lure buyers, some companies have included additional gadgets.
For example, GAC’s Aion V sported a refrigerator as well as a massage function as part of the seating.
The Aion V is one of the cars GAC is launching in Europe as it looks to expand its presence in the region. The Aion V is on display at the company’s stand at the IAA Mobility auto show in Munich, Germany on September 9, 2025.
Arjun Kharpal | CNBC
This is one way that the Chinese players sought to differentiate themselves from legacy brands.
“The chances of success for Chinese automakers are strong, especially as they have an edge in terms of affordability, battery technology, and production scale,” Counterpoint’s Ali said.
Europe’s carmakers push back
Legacy carmakers sought to flex their own muscles at the IAA with Volskwagen, BMW and Mercedes having among the biggest stands at the show. Mercedes in particular had advertising displayed all across the front entrance of the event.
BMW, like the Chinese players, had a big focus on technology by talking up its so-called “superbrain architecture,” which replaces hardware with a centralized computer system. BMW, which introduced the iX3 at the event, and chipmaker Qualcomm also announced assisted driving software that the two companies co-developed.
Volkswagen and French auto firm Renault also showed off some new electric cars.
Regardless of the product blitz, there are still concerns that European companies are not moving fast enough. BMW’s new iX3 is based on the electric vehicle platform it first debuted two years ago. Meanwhile, Chinese EV makers have been quick in bringing out and launching newer models.
“A commitment to legacy structures and incrementalism has slowed its ability to build and leverage a robust EV ecosystem, leaving it behind fast moving rivals,” Tammy Madsen, professor of management at the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University, said of BMW.
While European autos have a strong brand history and their CEOs acknowledged and welcomed the competition this week in interviews with CNBC, the Chinese are not letting up.
“Europe’s automakers still hold significant brand value and legacy. The challenge for them lies in achieving production at scale and adopting new technologies faster,” Counterpoint’s Ali said.
“The Chinese surely are not waiting for anyone to catch-up and are making significant gains.”
OpenAI on Friday introduced a new program, dubbed the “OpenAI Grove,” for early tech entrepreneurs looking to build with artificial intelligence, and applications are already open.
Unlike OpenAI’s Pioneer Program, which launched in April, Grove is aimed towards individuals at the very nascent phases of their company development, from the pre-idea to pre-seed stage.
For five weeks, participants will receive mentoring from OpenAI technical leaders, early access to new tools and models, and in-person workshops, located in the company’s San Francisco headquarters.
Roughly 15 members will join Grove’s first cohort, which will run from Oct. 20 to Nov. 21, 2025. Applicants will have until Sept. 24 to submit an entry form.
CNBC has reached out to OpenAI for comment on the program.
Following the program, Grove participants will be able to continue working internally with the ChatGPT maker, which was recent valued $500 billion.
Nurturing these budding AI companies is just a small chip in the recent massive investments into AI firms, which ate up an impressive 71% of U.S. venture funding in 2025, up from 45% last year, according to an analysis from J.P. Morgan.
AI startups raised $104.3 billion in the U.S. in the first half of this year, and currently over 1,300 AI startups have valuations of over $100 million, according to CB Insights.
The co-founder and CEO of sales and customer service management software company Salesforce is well aware that investors are betting big on Palantir, which offers data management software to businesses and government agencies.
“Oh my gosh. I am so inspired by that company,” Benioff told CNBC’s Morgan Brennan in a Tuesday interview at Goldman Sachs‘ Communacopia+Technology conference in San Francisco. “I mean, not just because they have 100 times, you know, multiple on their revenue, which I would love to have that too. Maybe it’ll have 1000 times on their revenue soon.”
Salesforce, a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, remains 10 times larger than Palantir by revenue, with over $10 billion in revenue during the latest quarter. But Palantir is growing 48%, compared with 10% for Salesforce.
Benioff added that Palantir’s prices are “the most expensive enterprise software I’ve ever seen.”
“Maybe I’m not charging enough,” he said.
Read more CNBC tech news
It wasn’t Benioff’s first time talking about Palantir. Last week, Benioff referenced Palantir’s “extraordinary” prices in an interview with CNBC’s Jim Cramer, saying Salesforce offers a “very competitive product at a much lower cost.”
The next day, TBPN podcast hosts John Coogan and Jordi Hays asked for a response from Alex Karp, Palantir’s co-founder and CEO.
“We are very focused on value creation, and we ask to be modestly compensated for that value,” Karp said.
The companies sometimes compete for government deals, and Benioff touted a recent win over Palantir for a U.S. Army contract.
Palantir started in 2003, four years after Salesforce. But while Salesforce went public in 2004, Palantir arrived on the New York Stock Exchange in 2020.
Palantir’s market capitalization stands at $406 billion, while Salesforce is worth $231 billion. And as one of the most frequently traded stocks on Robinhood, Palantir is popular with retail investors.
Salesforce shares are down 27% this year, the worst performance in large-cap tech.