SpaceX and OpenAI are rushing to go public; is Wall Street ready?

Null

Text | Listening Tube Tech (ID:tingtongtech), Author | Chen Ke, Editor | Rao Xiafei

Elon Musk and Sam Altman's "Century Lawsuit" has just been decided, and the battle between the two has quickly shifted to Wall Street.

On May 21, Pacific Time, SpaceX officially submitted its S-1 registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, planning to list on NASDAQ under the ticker "SPCX," with a target valuation of up to $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion, and a fundraising cap of $75 billion.

On the same day, it was reported that OpenAI is working with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to draft its IPO prospectus, with plans to secretly file IPO documents as early as May 22, aiming for a listing as early as September this year.

A pair of former entrepreneurial partners, now mortal enemies in court and the market, sent their respective invitations to the capital market within the same week. But this is not a warm story of "former brothers joining hands to go ashore"; it is a fierce, head-to-head Wall Street showdown.

In this grand drama, Musk is selling a story of "Space AI." Altman is telling a story of how a "non-profit charity" transforms into a profit-hungry enterprise.

For outside spectators, more attention is paid to whose story sounds better, whose data looks more impressive, and who is the one desperately trying to continue their life through the listing.

More importantly, are these tech giants telling stories, or creating value? After these two giants compete for a position on Wall Street, what kind of market is left for investors and the industry?

-01- SpaceX: No profit, just stuffing "dreams" into the prospectus

This time, Musk is presenting investors with a highly torn financial disclosure.

Musk’s goal is grand: SpaceX plans to raise $75 billion, with a valuation of $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion, and an expected first-day listing on June 12. If achieved, SpaceX will be the largest IPO in human history, and Musk will become the world’s first trillionaire.

But key data revealed in the prospectus shows that by 2025, SpaceX’s net loss will reach $4.94 billion, and the loss in the first quarter of 2026 is shockingly close to the entire 2025, at $4.28 billion, which is far from the $2 trillion valuation.

Breaking down the business segments, SpaceX’s "wealth disparity" is stark.

Chart: Revenue and profit of SpaceX’s three main business segments

Source: SpaceX IPO prospectus

Among the three segments—aerospace, connectivity/Starlink, and AI—Starlink’s connectivity business is the only one that can be considered solid. In Q1 2026, revenue was $3.26 billion, with an operating profit of $1.19 billion, accounting for 69% of total revenue. An operating profit of $1.19 billion in a single quarter is an extremely impressive figure by any standard.

But the question is, where did the money from Starlink go? The answer lies in the other two segments.

SpaceX’s aerospace business (rocket launches and Starship projects) generated $619 million in revenue in Q1, but lost $662 million. Data shows that SpaceX has already burned over $15 billion developing Starship.

However, the real profit driver is the AI business. After acquiring Musk’s own AI startup xAI, SpaceX merged it into the "SpaceXAI" segment. In 2025, it lost $17.5k for the full year, and in Q1 2026, another $20k.

In other words, the net profit earned by Starlink is not only fully reinvested into the other two segments but also results in owing dozens of billions of dollars.

From Musk’s script, this is a beautiful plan: the "Starlink" on the ground makes money to support the "Space AI" and "Mars" in space. Perhaps because of this, Musk merged xAI into SpaceX before going public.

In the market’s view, this IPO essentially tests a hypothesis: can "Starlink" sustain a "Mars" and a "Space AI"?

In other words, the $2 trillion valuation can be understood as Starlink contributing about $0.5 trillion, the AI story of xAI contributing about $0.5 trillion, and the remaining $1 trillion is basically a long-term option for "space AI infrastructure."

Investors are willing to tolerate Musk’s "Starlink" losses because they believe that the current black hole of xAI will become a second printing press in the future. According to SpaceX, the potential market size for AI around 2030 is as high as $26.5 trillion. This story makes the current losses understandable.

More importantly, Musk’s investment in "space money" has many more stories to tell.

Take the core orbital AI data center as an example: it is reported that SpaceX has applied to the FCC to deploy up to 1 million satellites, building an "unprecedented satellite constellation with computing power" in low Earth orbit to drive advanced AI models.

SpaceX wrote in the IPO prospectus, "We believe we are the only company with a commercially viable path to large-scale orbital AI computing infrastructure," and plan to start deployment as early as 2028.

Another underlying tool is Starship.

SpaceX has invested over $15 billion in Starship development, with about $3 billion spent in 2025 alone. Starship is the transportation infrastructure for space AI, lunar missions, and Mars colonization; without it, space data centers are castles in the air.

Further down the line, there are longer-term blueprints such as lunar manufacturing infrastructure and Mars colonization.

It’s clear that SpaceX’s valuation includes huge expectations premiums for the space economy, AI, and Musk himself.

Previously, some comments pointed out that what truly boosts SpaceX’s valuation might not be any financial model but the investor’s fear of missing out on the next Tesla.

Many analyses suggest that no matter how explosive SpaceX’s data is, analysts and investors are willing to buy because of Tesla’s past decade of stock price gains exceeding 2,700%. The fear of missing the next Tesla is driving analysts to abandon rationality collectively.

In any case, SpaceX’s decision to go public now indicates that Musk is ready to sell a package of money-burning dreams, huge losses, and 85.1% control at a $2 trillion valuation to the world.

-02- OpenAI: From "Benefiting Humanity" to "Listing for Cash"

If Musk’s IPO is a valuation gamble, Altman’s IPO is more like a "must-raise to recover."

Compared to that, although OpenAI’s story is more down-to-earth, the burning rate of large models and APIs is akin to "taking off on a rocket."

On May 21, multiple media outlets reported that investment banks including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are helping OpenAI draft its IPO prospectus, with plans to secretly submit documents to regulators soon, possibly within the next few days.

Some insiders also said that OpenAI aims to start listing as early as September, but plans are still uncertain and may change.

In other words, this AI giant, once valued at over $850 billion, is opening its doors to the secondary market. Many industry insiders also believe that Altman likely hopes to beat Musk to the punch.

After all, Altman just settled Musk’s lawsuit over "departing from the public mission." Without this major obstacle, OpenAI is accelerating its IPO schedule.

But in the market’s view, although OpenAI appears to be "landing," it is more like a "cash recovery and escape" operation.

Beyond the surface of the $850 billion valuation, OpenAI’s core is not so glamorous.

First, OpenAI needs money to survive. Public data shows that OpenAI has about 960 million monthly active users, with annual revenue of about $25 billion, which looks quite impressive, but it burns $57 billion a year, with a net loss of $44 billion.

Additionally, OpenAI’s monetization efficiency per user is problematic. For example, competitor Anthropic contributes $211 per monthly active user, while OpenAI only earns $25.

Previously, Altman hinted in various settings that the annual compute cost is astronomical. Without going public to raise funds, private markets have plenty of money but will eventually run out. Relying on the secondary market is essentially asking global investors for funding.

Moreover, the so-called lawsuit victory for OpenAI does not really mark a key turning point.

Many see Musk’s defeat as the critical turning point for OpenAI’s listing. But in reality, although the lawsuit was won, Musk’s probing questions remain unanswered. A company born with a "non-profit" slogan, yet eager to pay out huge dividends to shareholders (including Microsoft), has a governance structure full of contradictions.

Many analysts believe that choosing to go public now is a move to capitalize on the hype, riding the wave of "winning against Musk," and the still-fresh reputation of GPT-5.5, before it cools down.

Of course, the market’s old refrain is that OpenAI was once unique but is now under siege. Whether it’s Anthropic rapidly eating into OpenAI’s market share or Google catching up, it shows that Altman must race ahead quickly to secure the market lead.

Especially since, although ChatGPT is famous, Anthropic’s Claude has a very good reputation in the enterprise market. Reports say Anthropic’s annual revenue has exceeded $30 billion, and its latest valuation is about $900 billion, surpassing OpenAI.

In this context, if OpenAI doesn’t go public soon, it might lose the opportunity. Once the market’s attention shifts to Anthropic’s IPO or if the next "Strawberry" or "Orion" model fails to ignite the market as expected, the myth of OpenAI’s valuation could shatter at any time.

-03- Are they telling stories, or creating value?

Not to mention, Anthropic, which is competing with Musk and Altman for IPO, has just been reported to be profitable.

According to recent media reports, Anthropic’s revenue in Q2 is expected to double to $10.9 billion, helping the company achieve its first profit.

This is not good news for Musk and Altman, as neither SpaceX nor OpenAI has announced profitability yet.

(Image source: internet)

And these will undoubtedly accelerate industry competition. Whether it’s SpaceX or OpenAI, what’s at stake is who gets the IPO lead and the "golden parachute."

For Musk, after SpaceX goes public, there will be two Musk-related concept stocks. Tesla’s story is about EV penetration and autonomous driving—well-verified stories. SpaceX’s stories about Starlink, orbital computing, and Mars colonization have longer realization cycles and more boundless imagination.

For Altman, pushing OpenAI to IPO allows him to cash out his options and equity, transforming from an "AI evangelist" to a "Silicon Valley billionaire."

However, although these two star companies may enter the capital market’s coming-of-age ceremony, they still need to prove whether their valuations are bubbles worth trillions.

The fact is, the market cares more about whether these companies are telling stories or creating real value.

It’s well known that SpaceX’s valuation is based on "long-term imagination," but the problem is, this time Musk’s "pie-in-the-sky" is too huge.

Whether Musk’s optimistic expectations can be realized depends on whether Starship can launch on time, whether AI can find a commercial path in orbit, and whether space data centers can turn from PPTs into servers.

Even the prospectus admits that these plans are "still in early stages, involving significant technical uncertainties, and may not achieve commercial viability." Market analysis also points out that SpaceX’s price-to-revenue ratio will reach about 80 times, far above the average of about 7 times for the top 15 U.S. companies by market cap.

OpenAI’s $1 trillion valuation is based on the assumption that "large models will become the next-generation operating system."

From the current product form, ChatGPT remains a conversational AI tool, with a business model still within the "per-token charging" framework.

OpenAI is also trying to cover its internal and external difficulties by urgent adjustments, such as shutting down the money-burning but nearly unmonetized Sora video project, and even rumors of developing its own smartphones.

But investors are not convinced. According to The Information, multiple underwriters have surveyed public market investors, and the feedback has been quite cold, mainly concerned about overvaluation, with a forward price-to-sales ratio of 28 (based on expected 2026 revenue), far exceeding Nvidia’s about 12.

All these market reactions indicate that this is not a traditional IPO but more like a capital escape.

Ultimately, the reason is that both SpaceX and OpenAI are not traditional companies.

SpaceX’s dream is to build a city on Mars; OpenAI aims to achieve AGI. In Wall Street’s narrative logic, such grand, unconventional stories may be the only way to justify astronomical valuations.

But the reality is, SpaceX’s prospectus shows Musk holds 85% of voting rights through a dual-class share structure. This means as long as he insists on the Mars colonization dream, the company must follow, regardless of investor opinions.

Similarly, OpenAI’s various statements keep teaching investors one thing: "Please believe we will get better, just a little difficult now."

In other words, both IPOs share a common trait: they do not persuade investors with a beautiful profit curve but instead ask investors to pay for a future "promise."

Of course, the only certainty in this capital game is that whether SpaceX or OpenAI successfully lists, it will be one of the largest IPOs in history, bringing huge underwriting fees to Wall Street and enormous personal wealth to founders.

But at the same time, retail investors may have to pay a hefty price to fill the huge black hole of financial losses.

And this is precisely the awkwardness of the capital market. If the stock price performs poorly after listing, investors might conclude that these companies are overvalued.

It reminds one of the tech stock frenzy in 2021. At that time, any company related to cloud and SaaS enjoyed super-high valuations, only to suffer a brutal correction during the rate hike cycle. Many analysts said, "Investing in these stocks requires a strong heart."

Conversely, for these two mega IPOs, investors need to think carefully: are they willing to pay a premium for Mars colonization and orbital data centers? Or are they willing to wait many years for the vision of AGI to materialize?

After all, the bubble and the vision are separated not just by a series of disappointing earnings but by a real capital valuation war.

Wall Street also needs to be prepared, because what follows these two will be more stories.

(Headline images and some illustrations from AI.)

(Disclaimer: This article is for informational exchange only and does not constitute any investment advice.)