Synthetic pre-IPO exposure with discretionary operator redemption

What this analysis covers

8 current token addresses across 8 underlyings inherit this analysis.

• ANDURILprivate-company
• ANTHROPICprivate-company
• FIGUREAIprivate-company
• KALSHIprivate-company
• NEURALINKprivate-company
• OPENAIprivate-company
• POLYMARKETprivate-company
• SPACEXprivate-company

Exceptions: none recorded. An asset-specific conclusion must be shown here before it overrides the inherited template.

Traceable conclusions

Each conclusion carries its classification, exact supporting words, source authority, location, governing law, holder scope and review date. A document saying something is not the same as an independently observed outcome.

Evidence confidence

Confidence is stated per conclusion type. It is not collapsed into one score.

Complete claim chain

Possessing the token is only the first link. Each intermediary can add a separate contract, governing law and failure dependency.

Parties that can interrupt or enforce the chain

Jurisdiction and holder eligibility

A wallet may be technically able to receive a token while its owner is contractually ineligible, unable to redeem, or excluded from rights under the governing documents.

Insolvency and enforcement

Bankruptcy remote

no

Security interest

no

Security holder

—

Recorded priority

unknown

Collateral ratio

unknown

Collateral composition

may-include-other

Rehypothecation

undisclosed

On-loan amount disclosed

no

Segregation / trust evidence

—

Omnibus / commingling evidence

—

Perfection / priority evidence

—

Custodian lien / set-off evidence

—

Who can enforce

No separate enforcement representative is structured here; standing depends on the holder claim and governing terms reproduced above.

Holder standing

A bearer Token-2022 token that "reference[s] economic exposure to designated pre-IPO companies" and confers "no ownership, voting, dividend, information, or other legal rights". The ToS grants no proprietary interest in any SPV, share or asset; the holder's only stated entitlement is to request redemption for USDC "or another mutually agreed form of value", which the operator may satisfy instead by pointing the holder at on-chain liquidity.

A contractual label such as “segregated”, “trust” or “first priority” is not treated as a court-tested insolvency result unless the dossier records that authority.

Corporate actions

Issuer or contract mediated

Dividends

none

Voting

none

Other corporate actions

IPO: underlying positions become convertible on-chain (without KYC) into an equivalent tokenized public stock; typical 6-month post-IPO lockup during which the token may trade at a discount; holders have 9 months post-IPO (3 months after lockup) to convert, after which "the tokens will expire worthless and will no longer be supported". M&A: cash deals distribute net proceeds pro rata as USDC; equity deals may become convertible into a tokenized version of the acquirer's equity "if we create and support one", with a 6-month conversion window, then expiry. Separately, balances can be restated unilaterally through the scaledUiAmountConfig multiplier, and this has happened twice: SPACEX x5 effective 2026-06-10T04:30:00Z and OPENAI x1.4861347 effective 2026-07-17T16:30:00Z. Neither was explained publicly.

Economic equivalence may be delivered by cash, balance adjustment or issuer calculation; it is not assumed to reproduce the underlying shareholder right.

Redemption path

Available

yes

Eligibility

Any non-US, non-Restricted holder "may request redemption" - discretionary, not an entitlement. Which path is used "depends on those circumstances"; the operator may direct the holder to on-chain liquidity instead of processing a redemption.

Route

USDC or "another mutually agreed form of value"; alternatively realisation via on-chain liquidity, conversions, wraps, migrations or exchanges. Post-IPO the stated path is conversion into an equivalent tokenized public stock rather than cash.

KYC

—

Minimum

unknown

Fees

Unbounded and unilateral. ToS reserves redemption, settlement, conversion and withdrawal fees plus markups/spreads, enforced "at the token, smart-contract, or program level" via transfer-fee configurations and hooks, changeable "without prior notice and without your consent", with no obligation "to publish, itemize, or explain the basis of any fee". Observed on-chain: 50 bps transfer fee, raised from 0 bps (fee epoch 848 -> 1032).

Timing / SLA

—

Notes

—

Source authority and precedence

The conclusion follows the highest-authority source applicable to the specific product, holder and issue. A technical capability cannot create a legal right, and marketing cannot override operative terms.

1. 1
   Mandatory law, court orders and official registers

   These can override private terms and determine legal title, perfection, insolvency priority or eligibility.

2. 2
   Product-specific final terms and operative agreements

   The document governing this product or series controls over a general description, subject to mandatory law.

3. 3
   Base prospectus and binding programme terms

   These govern the programme except where valid product-specific terms supplement or disapply them.

4. 4
   On-chain state

   Authoritative for what the program and current keys can technically do, but not by itself for legal ownership or enforceability.

5. 5
   Official operating documentation and attestations

   Evidence of process or reserves; it cannot silently enlarge rights excluded by the controlling legal documents.

6. 6
   Marketing, press and third-party descriptions

   Useful context only. A conflict is resolved in favour of the higher-authority source and remains visibly recorded.

Recorded conflicts and corrections

• governingLaw · contradicted-corrected

  CORRECTION: the dossier said "No substantive governing law is stated." The Terms of Service last updated 2026-09-08 carry a Governing Law and Jurisdiction section electing British Virgin Islands internal law; BVI courts also take exclusive jurisdiction if the class-action waiver fails. Field rewritten to state BVI law first and keep the LCIA seat as the forum.

  source ↗
• custodyVerification.type · contradicted-corrected

  CORRECTION to incidents[3] wording, not to this field: the sitemap lists only the home page, /products and the nine per-company pages (anduril, anthropic, figureai, kalshi, neuralink, openai, polymarket, spacex, xai). It does NOT list /ecosystem or /faq, contrary to the dossier text. Re-verified 2026-09-17: /attestations, /transparency, /proof-of-reserve and /reserves all still return HTTP 404.

  source ↗
• securityInterest.exists · contradicted-corrected

  CORRECTION 2026-09-18: was null, on the reasoning that nothing states what a holder ranks as INSTEAD. That confuses two questions. The Terms answer this one in their own words — "It does not of itself create a security interest" — so false is what the document says; what remains unknown is the ranking, which is securityInterest.priority and stays "unknown". Re-read in the stored text of the Notion original (https://prestocks.notion.site/terms-of-service, fetched 2026-09-18T11:41:50Z) and verified verbatim with watch.mjs quoteFound. bankruptcyRemote is corrected from null to false by the same sentence.

  source ↗
• corporateActions · contradicted-corrected

  NEW FACT the dossier did not have: the SPACEX mint carries a pending-then-effective 5x rebase, newMultiplierEffectiveTimestamp 1781065800 = 2026-06-10T04:30:00Z. corporateActions and knownExtensions previously mentioned only the OPENAI 1.4861347 rebase; both now record SPACEX x5 as well. OPENAI re-read as multiplier 1 -> newMultiplier 1.4861347 effective 1784305800 = 2026-07-17T16:30:00Z, exactly as the dossier said. The other six mints read 1 -> 1 with effective timestamp 0.

  source ↗
• parties.distributors · contradicted-corrected

  CORRECTION: the Raydium entry’s note said Raydium is "Named in the FAQ among the Solana venues where the tokens trade." The FAQ names only Jupiter. Raydium appears on https://prestocks.com/ecosystem, in the Liquidity category of a 71-entry list; the note now cites that page.

  source ↗
• vocabulary.presetJurisdiction.value · contradicted-corrected

  The value "no" stands, but its stated reason did not: the reason said "no substantive governing law are stated". British Virgin Islands law IS elected (Governing Law and Jurisdiction). The reason has been rewritten to rest on the absence of a named issuing entity and jurisdiction of incorporation, with BVI law and the LCIA seat noted as the fixed legal locus.

  source ↗

Document register

“Not structured” is a visible evidence gap: a date in a title is not silently promoted into metadata.

Open questions

• Who actually issues the tokens? No legal entity is named anywhere; "a distributed network of contributors" is not a counterparty a holder could sue, and the LCIA clause names no respondent.
• Which holding entities hold the exposure, and in what form? Names are withheld as policy, so the 1:1 backing claim in the API description is unverifiable in principle, not just in practice.
• Is ANTHROPIC exposure backed at all after Anthropic declared SPV transfers void under its transfer restrictions? The token still trades and the supply was never reduced.
• Has any attestation report ever been produced to any holder on request, and at what cost?
• Why was the OPENAI scaledUiAmount multiplier set to 1.4861347 on 2026-07-17 - a share split at OpenAI, a restatement of units per token, or a correction of over/under-collateralisation?
• RESOLVED, kept for the record: the ToS last updated 2026-09-08 does elect a substantive law - the internal laws of the British Virgin Islands - with LCIA arbitration seated in London and BVI courts as the fallback forum. The BVI is also a Prohibited Jurisdiction under the same document. What remains unanswered is who the BVI-law counterparty is.
• RESTATED (2026-09-18), not answered: the question is not why SPACEX trades about 21% below the issuer's own mark but why the dislocation runs BOTH ways at once — OPENAI +11.4% and NEURALINK +14.8% above the mark on the same read that has SPACEX -21.9% below it. A one-way friction (redemption gated, minting open, or the reverse) cannot produce both signs simultaneously, so either the mark is wrong for some names, the mint and redeem paths are both discretionary in practice, or the arbitrage described in the FAQ is not being performed at all. The FAQ describes the mechanism; nothing published evidences a single completed arbitrage.
• xAI has a live product page in sitemap.xml but no API entry or mint - is it unlaunched, delisted, or was it withdrawn?