The typical playbook for a successful tech founder looks something like this.
Start a company with full ownership. Sell off significant chunks to venture investors as the business progresses. Eventually become a minority owner. Take the company public. Sell more stock over time.
Asana’s Dustin Moskovitz took that playbook and completely rewrote the ending.
Moskovitz, who is still known by many as a co-founder of Facebook, started Asana in 2008 to make work more collaborative through software. By the time he took the company public through a direct listing in 2020, his ownership stood at about 36%.
Then, he went on a buying spree. Following the purchase of 480,000 Asana shares in June, Moskovitz’s ownership swelled to 111.4 million shares, representing over 51% of outstanding stock. In March, Asana disclosed that Moskovitz had a trading plan to buy up to 30 million more of its Class A shares this year, sending the stock up almost 19% the next day.
“It’s been a wild two years in the market and there have been some interesting buying opportunities,” Moskovitz said in an interview with CNBC.
Even after rallying 66% this year, Asana shares are more than 80% below their record high from late 2021.
For Moskovitz, who has a net worth over $12 billion — mostly from his early stake in Facebook, now Meta — becoming majority owner of Asana isn’t about control. Rather, he sees it as the best way to invest to support his philanthropy.
In 2010, Moskovitz signed the Giving Pledge, a promise by some of the wealthiest people in the world to donate most of their fortunes to charity. Moskovitz and his wife, former journalist Cari Tuna, dole out their funds through Good Ventures, based on recommendations from Open Philanthropy.
When it comes to spending that money, there’s no greater concern to Moskovitz than the future of artificial intelligence.
Good Ventures donated $30 million to startup OpenAI over a three-year period in 2017, long before generative AI or ChatGPT had entered the public lexicon. OpenAI, which is now worth about $30 billion, was started as a nonprofit, and Open Philanthropy said at the time it wanted “to help play a role in OpenAI’s approach to safety and governance issues.”
One of the 10 focus areas Open Philanthropy lists on its website is “potential risks from advanced AI.” The organization recommended a $5 million grant to the National Science Foundation to back research on methods of guaranteeing the safety of artificial intelligence systems, and $5.56 million to the University of California at Berkeley for “the creation of an academic center focused on AI safety.” In total, Open Philanthropy says it’s given over $300 million in the focus area through more than 170 grants.
“I definitely think there’s a big risk there — something I spend a lot of time thinking about,” Moskovitz said.
Moskovitz co-founded Facebook with Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes and Eduardo Saverin at Harvard University in 2004. He became a billionaire after Facebook’s 2012 initial public offering, holding more shares than any individual other than Zuckerberg.
Even after snapping up additional Asana shares in 2022 and 2023, his ownership sits at about $2.6 billion, less than the $4.6 billion in Facebook stock he owns, according to FactSet.
“I’m just in a unique position, where I came to the table with an existing source of wealth,” Moskovitz said. “So even things that look like gigantic purchases, it’s still a relatively normal sort of portion of my net worth relative to other founders.”
Moskovitz has agreed not to buy all outstanding Asana shares or even acquire ownership of 90% of the common stock. He will also keep a majority of its directors independent, in compliance with the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, according to a filing.
Moskovitz declined to talk about whether he was buying up shares to prevent activist investors from coming in and trying to force change. Activists have been busy in the cloud software space, most notably at Salesforce, which responded to pressure by expanding its buyback program and bolstering profits.
Samuel Altman, CEO of OpenAI, appears for testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law in Washington, D.C., May 16, 2023.
Win Mcnamee | Getty Images
Recently, Moskovitz’s worlds collided.
OpenAI vaulted from niche startup to the hottest thing in tech after releasing ChatGPT in November. Before that, Moskovitz was playing around with the company’s DALL-E technology for converting text into images. He said OpenAI CEO Sam Altman set him up with a “labs account” in April of last year.
Following the ChatGPT launch, Moskovitz had some fun asking the chatbot to come up with objectives to help deal with California’s housing problem.
Meanwhile, Asana joined the parade of companies that announced enhancements to their products with generative AI features that could take human input and present text, images or audio in response. Earlier this month, Asana said it had given some clients access to several generative AI features powered by OpenAI’s models.
“Chat is just one paradigm for how you use these technologies,” Moskovitz told CNBC. “When you’re integrating them into workflows like work management, doing things like optimizing automation workflows or helping to make decisions — you can literally ask questions of the system and it’ll give you a summary and a recommendation.”
Moskovitz said more complicated tasks, such as adding structure to projects, is where “it really sorts of takes off in potential.” Rather than just asking for specific answers, he said the power is in the technology to take “a bunch of information and sort of a vague goal” and then “give you something approximately in the right direction.”
Asana could spend $5 million or more on OpenAI’s technology next year, Moskovitz said, adding he was “very impressed by GPT-3,” the company’s prior large language model, “and was even more impressed by GPT-4,” which was announced in March.
Moskovitz took six minutes out of Asana’s 51-minute earnings call in early June to tout the company’s approach to AI. He used the acronym 41 times, compared with 32 AI references by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella on his company’s earnings call in April. Microsoft is OpenAI’s lead investor.
Asana is “just personally deeply connected to the AI labs that are leading the way,” Moskovitz said.
The links are, in fact, quite deep. Altman invested in Asana in 2016. On Asana’s earnings call, Moskovitz reminded analysts that his company and OpenAI “share a board member in Adam D’Angelo,” a former Facebook technology chief who later started online Q-and-A startup Quora.
Moskovitz invested in AI startup Anthropic in 2021, the same year he co-invested with Altman in nuclear fusion startup Helion.
Similar to Altman, Moskovitz is also deeply bullish on AI and worried about the damage it can cause.
Moskovitz was one of many entrepreneurs who signed a statement in May, saying that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” The missive came from the nonprofit Center for AI Safety.
But Moskovitz wasn’t among the signatories of the nonprofit Future of Life Institute’s open letter in March that called on AI labs to press pause on training the most sophisticated AI models for six months or more. Near the top of that list of signees was Tesla CEO Elon Musk, an early backer of OpenAI who has warned we should be very concerned about advanced AI, calling it “a bigger risk to society than cars or planes or medicine.”
Moskovitz said Musk’s fears aren’t completely overblown and that they both want “to bring this technology into the world in a safe way.”
“Elon kind of comes at it from multiple angles,” he said. “I think we sort of share the view about potential existential risk issues, and maybe don’t share the view as much about AI censorship and wokeism and stuff like that.”
In December, Musk tweeted that “the danger of training AI to be woke — in other words, lie — is deadly.”
Moskovitz has helped craft a 12-point list of possible policy changes for U.S. lawmakers to consider.
“The thing I’m most interested in is making sure that state-of-the-art later generations, like GPT-5, GPT-6, get run through safety evaluations before being released into the world,” he said. “I think that will require regulation to coordinate all the players.”
He even made up a word, in a tweet last month, to express his convoluted views.
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Nov. 21, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images
Last week on Wall Street, two forces dragged stocks lower: a set of high-stakes numbers from Nvidia and the U.S. jobs report that landed with more heat than expected. But the leaves that remained after hot tea scalded investors seemed to augur good tidings.
Even though Nvidia’s third-quarter results easily breezed past Wall Street’s estimates, they couldn’t quell worries about lofty valuations and an unsustainable bubble inflating in the artificial intelligence sector. The “Magnificent Seven” cohort — save Alphabet — had a losing week.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the pressure. September payrolls rose far more than economists expected, prompting investors to pare back their bets of a December interest rate cut. The timing didn’t help matters, as the report had been delayed and hit just as markets were already on edge.
On Friday, New York Federal Reserve President John Williams said that he sees “room” for the central bank to lower interest rates, describing current policy as “modestly restrictive.” His comments caused traders to increase their bets on a December cut to around 70%, up from 44.4% a week ago, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
And despite a broad sell-off in AI stocks last week, Alphabet shares bucked the trend. Investors seemed impressed by its new AI model, Gemini 3, and hopeful that its development of custom chips could rival Nvidia’s in the long run.
Meanwhile, Eli Lilly’s ascent into the $1 trillion valuation club served as a reminder that market leadership doesn’t belong to tech alone. In a market defined by narrow concentration, any sign of broadening strength is a welcome change.
Diversification, even within AI’s sprawling ecosystem, might be exactly what this market needs now.
Qube Holdings receives takeover proposal from Macquarie. The asset management firm has put forth a non-binding proposal to acquire Qube Holdings, an Australian logistics company, at an enterprise value of 11.6 billion Australian dollars ($7.49 billion).
Bessent doesn’t see a U.S. recession in 2026. “We have set the table for a very strong, noninflationary growth economy,” the U.S. Treasury secretary said Sunday in an interview on “Meet the Press.” However, he acknowledged that some sectors have been struggling.
Singapore inflation creeps up. The country’s consumer price index for October rose 1.2% year on year, the highest since August 2024 and surpassing the 0.9% estimate in a Reuters poll of economists. Core inflation also increased a higher-than-expected 1.2%.
[PRO] Opportunities in China’s tech sector. Despite a trade truce between the U.S. and China, ongoing tensions mean both will focus on homegrown technology, analysts say. Here are the Chinese tech firms that Wall Street banks are keeping an eye on.
And finally…
A picture taken on December 8, 2014 in Abidjan shows a Chinese shoe dealer in a transaction at Adjamene’s market.
Chinese business dealings in Africa, once dominated by state-owned enterprises, are now increasingly shifting toward consumer products from the private sector.
Chinese investments in Africa’s resource-intensive sectors have declined by roughly 40% since their 2015 peak, according to Rhodium Group China Cross-Border Monitor released on Nov. 18 this year. Meanwhile, China’s exports to Africa have surged by 28% year on year over the first three quarters of 2025, the report said.
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Nov. 21, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images
Last week on Wall Street, two forces dragged stocks lower: a set of high-stakes numbers from Nvidia and the U.S. jobs report that landed with more heat than expected. But the leaves that remained after hot tea scalded investors seemed to augur good tidings.
Even though Nvidia’s third-quarter results easily breezed past Wall Street’s estimates, they couldn’t quell worries about lofty valuations and an unsustainable bubble inflating in the artificial intelligence sector. The “Magnificent Seven” cohort — save Alphabet — had a losing week.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the pressure. September payrolls rose far more than economists expected, prompting investors to pare back their bets of a December interest rate cut. The timing didn’t help matters, as the report had been delayed and hit just as markets were already on edge.
On Friday, New York Federal Reserve President John Williams said that he sees “room” for the central bank to lower interest rates, describing current policy as “modestly restrictive.” His comments caused traders to increase their bets on a December cut to around 70%, up from 44.4% a week ago, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
And despite a broad sell-off in AI stocks last week, Alphabet shares bucked the trend. Investors seemed impressed by its new AI model, Gemini 3, and hopeful that its development of custom chips could rival Nvidia’s in the long run.
Meanwhile, Eli Lilly’s ascent into the $1 trillion valuation club served as a reminder that market leadership doesn’t belong to tech alone. In a market defined by narrow concentration, any sign of broadening strength is a welcome change.
Diversification, even within AI’s sprawling ecosystem, might be exactly what this market needs now.
What you need to know today
And finally…
The Beijing music venue DDC was one of the latest to have to cancel a performance by a Japanese artist on Nov. 20, 2025, in the wake of escalating bilateral tensions.
China’s escalating dispute with Japan reinforces Beijing’s growing economic influence — and penchant for abrupt actions that can create uncertainty for businesses.
Hours before Japanese jazz quintet The Blend was due to perform in Beijing on Thursday, a plainclothesman walked into the DDC music club during a sound check. Then, “the owner of the live house came to me and said: ‘The police has told me tonight is canceled,'” said Christian Petersen-Clausen, a music agent.
— Evelyn Cheng
Correction: This report has been updated to correct the spelling of Eli Lilly.
Meta halted internal research that purportedly showed that people who stopped using Facebook became less depressed and anxious, according to a legal filing that was released on Friday.
The social media giant was alleged to have initiated the study, dubbed Project Mercury, in late 2019 as a way to help it “explore the impact that our apps have on polarization, news consumption, well-being, and daily social interactions,” according to the legal brief, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The filing contains newly unredacted information pertaining to Meta.
The newly released legal brief is related to high-profile multidistrict litigation from a variety of plaintiffs, such as school districts, parents and state attorneys general against social media companies like Meta, Google’s YouTube, Snap and TikTok.
The plaintiffs claim that these businesses were aware that their respective platforms caused various mental health-related harms to children and young adults, but failed to take action and instead misled educators and authorities, among several allegations.
“We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions in an attempt to present a deliberately misleading picture,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement. “The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens—like introducing Teen Accounts with built-in protections and providing parents with controls to manage their teens’ experiences.”
A Google spokesperson said in a statement that “These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works and the allegations are simply not true.”
“YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends,” the Google spokesperson said. “We’ve also developed dedicated tools for young people, guided by child safety experts, that give families control.”
Snap and TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The 2019 Meta research was based on a random sample of consumers who stopped their Facebook and Instagram usage for a month, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit alleged that Meta was disappointed that the initial tests of the study showed that people who stopped using Facebook “for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.”
Meta allegedly chose not to “sound the alarm,” but instead stopped the research, the lawsuit said.
“The company never publicly disclosed the results of its deactivation study,” according to the suit. “Instead, Meta lied to Congress about what it knew.”
The lawsuit cites an unnamed Meta employee who allegedly said, “If the results are bad and we don’t publish and they leak, is it going to look like tobacco companies doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves?”
Stone, in a series of social media posts, pushed back on the lawsuit’s implication that Meta shuttered the internal research after it allegedly showed a causal relationship between its apps and adverse mental-health effects.
Stone characterized the 2019 study as flawed and said it was the reason that the company expressed disappointment. The study, Stone said, merely found that “people who believed using Facebook was bad for them felt better when they stopped using it.”
“This is a confirmation of other public research (“deactivation studies”) out there that demonstrates the same effect,” Stone said in a separate post. “It makes intuitive sense but it doesn’t show anything about the actual effect of using the platform.”