Jason Lemkin

That's Trump change in the back of his couch.

He's saying, hey, you guys planned this all along, and therefore my damages claim is not just giving my $30 million back, and it's not stop the conversion to a for-profit, because that's already happened now.

That can't be stopped.

It's like, you guys took my $30 million under false pretenses, therefore I'm owed roughly what $30 million would own out of that company now, which is $100 billion of value.

He's basically saying, if we're going to go for-profit here, guys—

and you guys were lying to me all along, then I want my share of that now.

So you're all going to have to take dilution such that I get my $100 million.

The damages claim is $70 to $130 billion, which would come in the form of extra shares of OpenAI to Elon, and everyone else would have to take the dilution.

That's the ask.

That's what's going on here.

In the end, it's an economic argument on the basis of fraudulent intent from day one.

I think in the great words, yeah, I think he's doing it because he can and it's fun.

Billionaires going to billionaire and near trillionaires are going to near trillionaire.

I mean, it's a win-win.

He feels shafted and you're right, it's good for Grok if it slows it down.

And he might win $100 billion.

And there's not a ton of downside other than a bunch of legal fees because they've got no claim on you.

It's an asymmetric win-win situation for him, provided you have a couple hundred million dollars of legal fees it's going to consume here, right?

Because we are litigating over $100 billion.

And then the other thing that happens is, and he's lived through this on the Twitter litigation.