.jpeg)
On May 12, US-based startup Anthropic (developer of the Claude LLM) published a notice leaving no room for ambiguity: any transfer of shares carried out without explicit board approval is void. Direct sales, beneficial interests, forward contracts, SPVs and tokenized securities. Nothing falls outside the scope.
The timing is no coincidence. Over the past seven months, two Solana-based platforms, PreStocks and Ventuals, have built a parallel market around tokenized Anthropic equity. Combined volume reached $1.1 billion, with implied valuations hovering between $1.5 trillion and $1.6 trillion, roughly four times the latest private valuation of approximately $380 billion.
Meanwhile, Anthropic is reportedly in talks to raise $30 billion at a $900 billion valuation.
The market reaction was immediate. The ANTHROPIC token on PreStocks dropped between 25% and 35%. Anthropic confirmed that no shares had ever been authorized or transferred.
What the "Void" Clause Means for Institutional Investors
The mechanism is more or less always the same. PreStocks, Ventuals and the secondary markets targeted by Anthropic's notice acquire shares from early stakeholders, then issue a token backed 1:1 by the purchased equity. Trading then takes place peer-to-peer, on decentralized rails.
This is the strongest public stance taken to date by a major private issuer against this type of market. And the choice of words carries significant legal weight. Under Delaware law, a transfer deemed void (as opposed to voidable) is null and void by operation of law, with no possibility of ratification. The usual protections afforded to good-faith purchasers vanish. Initial sellers can, in theory, retain both the cash and the shares, leaving buyers with no recourse other than to pursue the intermediaries.
Pierre d'Ormesson, partner at DLA Piper, spells it out: "Any unauthorized transfer is void and will not be recognized in Anthropic's records. What some SPVs or funds are actually selling are derivatives: synthetic exposure to the economic value of the stock, not an ownership right. You are not a shareholder, and neither is the SPV."
In practice, pre-IPO equity tokenization broadens retail access but creates nothing more than a speculative instrument. Neither the traders nor the underlying SPVs hold any legal rights over the shares themselves. The risk falls entirely on the end buyer.
Pierre d'Ormesson details what is missing: "Under the law, being a shareholder entails three things: governance rights, financial rights (dividends or liquidation proceeds) and information rights. When you purchase tokenized Anthropic 'shares,' you obtain none of these rights in the company itself. All you get is the contractual exposure set out in the token issuer's terms."
The Big Whale's Take
Anthropic's notice highlights a structural flaw that RWA proponents have tended to underestimate: tokenizing an asset does not create a legal link with the issuer without its consent.
Pierre d'Ormesson frames it clearly: "Certain tokenized equity products can provide access to genuine ownership rights, but only if the underlying legal documentation validly transfers shares and confers shareholder rights. This must remain in compliance with the issuer's articles of association and existing shareholder agreements."
In other words, tokenization with attached shareholder rights is possible, but it almost certainly amounts to issuing a security token, with all the regulatory burden that entails.
Without the issuer's buy-in, these instruments remain economic bets. Not ownership stakes. The precedent could prove influential: SpaceX, Stripe and Databricks face similar unauthorized secondary activity and now have a legal blueprint to replicate.
This does not invalidate the RWA thesis as a whole. It clarifies the conditions. The next step requires issuer-approved structures (along the lines of what Securitize has built with KKR and Hamilton Lane) that confer genuine on-chain shareholder rights, not merely price exposure.
%201.png)
%201.png)
%201.png)
%201.png)
%201.png)
