OpenAI and Anthropic’s Hyperliquid Valuations Fell as AI-Safety Fears Rose

The weekend decline in Hyperliquid’s OpenAI and Anthropic markets was a dramatic signal from a small, highly speculative venue—not a definitive repricing of either private company. The contracts still implied more than $3.5 trillion in combined value after the sell-off, while the AI-safety debate was intensifying.

The weekend move: OpenAI down 11%, Anthropic down 4%

Hyperliquid’s synthetic contracts implied an OpenAI valuation of roughly $1.465 trillion, down about 11%, and an Anthropic valuation just above $2.07 trillion, down about 4%. That put their combined implied value above $3.5 trillion, even after roughly $270 billion of implied value disappeared within hours. 5

Those figures are striking, but they should not be read as official marks. Neither company’s shares changed hands through these contracts, and neither company set the quoted values.

What the Hyperliquid contracts actually represented

These instruments were synthetic perpetual derivatives that let traders take a position on an implied company valuation. They did not confer stock ownership, voting rights, a claim on company assets, or a right to convert into private shares. A contract price was simply a market convention for the company’s implied market capitalization. 32

That distinction matters because a quoted price can be influenced heavily by trading depth, leverage, funding mechanics, and the design of the reference market. It is not equivalent to a priced financing round, an IPO price, or a company-approved valuation.

The supplied reporting also indicated that Anthropic’s contract was frozen at a trailing 24-hour average and settled, so it was no longer trading on Hyperliquid. 5

Why AI-safety warnings became part of the market narrative

The sell-off coincided with growing attention to warnings from Jacob Coxon, a researcher who previously worked at OpenAI and then Anthropic. Coxon resigned from Anthropic and accused both labs of “gambling with our lives,” warning that increasingly capable systems could become superhuman, compromise computer systems through hacking, and potentially lead to catastrophic outcomes by the end of the decade. 14

Coxon’s message drew particular attention because of his experience at both labs and reports that he left before Anthropic equity vested. 15

His core argument was about a future trajectory: a race toward self-improving, insufficiently controlled AI systems. It was not evidence that current models can cause human extinction today. The nearer-term risks in this debate include misuse, cyberattacks, and inadequate safeguards; the extinction scenario depends on further rapid capability gains and failures of control. 14

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment lead, publicly reinforced the seriousness of the long-term concern, saying he expected more than a 10% chance of human extinction from AI. 4

The political and IPO response

David Sacks called for Anthropic’s planned IPO to be paused while Coxon’s allegations were investigated. 4

At OpenAI, Sam Altman said the company would not go public in 2026. He described an IPO at this moment as “ill-advised,” citing the work still required on safety and alignment and saying even a 10% chance of AI causing human extinction by the end of the decade would be unacceptable. 2

Reporting described the expected timing as no earlier than 2027. 3

Separately, Anthropic was reported to be pursuing a prospective public-market valuation near $2 trillion, compared with a reported private valuation of $965 billion. The supplied sources do not independently establish a completed IPO filing or a firm listing date, so those details should be treated as reported expectations rather than settled facts. 7

What investors should take from the price swings

The Hyperliquid decline suggests that some traders were applying a safety and governance discount to two companies that were still being assigned extraordinary implied valuations. But the contracts’ structure and potential liquidity limits mean the move should not be mistaken for a broad, reliable consensus about either company’s value.

The more durable signal is the tension now visible across the AI industry: investors continue to price in exceptional growth, while insiders and executives are debating whether capability advances are outpacing alignment, cybersecurity protections, oversight, and governance. The disagreement is less about whether current AI systems pose meaningful risks than about how quickly those risks could worsen, whether voluntary safeguards are sufficient, and how much weight to give a low-probability but existential outcome. 124