On August 19, The Information reported that Anthropic—the AI safety darling—is engineering a new class of stock with enhanced voting rights for CEO Dario Amodei and co-founders. The stated goal: insulate the founding team from external shareholder pressure. This is not a DAO governance proposal. It is a traditional corporate move, but the implications echo across the blockchain landscape. Super voting rights are the antithesis of the decentralized ethos that crypto preaches. Yet, here is the twist: Anthropic is doing exactly what many crypto founders secretly wish they could do—lock in control without the hassle of a hack or a fork.
Context: The AI Safety Paradox
Anthropic was founded as a public benefit corporation, committed to responsible AI development. Its co-founders, including former OpenAI employees, have repeatedly emphasized the need to prioritize safety over profit. But the reality of venture capital is that investors demand returns. As Anthropic’s valuation soared past $18 billion, the tension between mission and money became acute. The co-founders hold a relatively low percentage of equity, making them vulnerable to boardroom coups or hostile takeovers. The new super voting shares are designed to prevent that. They will also retain a non-shareholder trustee system to elect a majority of board members, effectively neutering external influence.
Sounds familiar? In the crypto world, we call this “founder maximalism” or “centralized governance.” Projects like Uniswap, Compound, and even Bitcoin have faced similar struggles. Bitcoin’s decentralized consensus is maintained by miners and nodes, not by a single voting class. But in the corporate world, super voting rights are a blunt instrument. They are the antithesis of the transparency that blockchain promises. Yet, the irony is that blockchain-based governance models—like token-weighted voting—often lead to plutocracy, where the wealthy few control the network. Anthropic’s approach is more honest: it admits that control belongs to a select group, and it codifies that in legal documents.
Core: A Systematic Teardown of the Power Structure
Let’s dissect the mechanics. Anthropic is creating a new class of shares—let’s call them Class F shares—with 10 votes per share, while existing common shares get one vote. The founders will hold the majority of Class F shares. Additionally, the board of directors will be elected by a majority of these super voting shares, not by all shareholders. The non-shareholder trustees—a separate entity—will have the power to approve or veto certain decisions, acting as a safety valve. This structure is similar to the “golden share” used by governments to retain control in privatized industries. But it’s also reminiscent of the “multisig” wallets used in crypto, where a small group of signers control the treasury.
From my on-chain forensic experience, I have seen similar patterns in DeFi protocols. When a project launches with a “team multisig” that can upgrade contracts without community vote, it’s a red flag. The Anthropic structure is essentially a corporate multisig. The founders hold the keys. The trustees are the backup signers. The investors are relegated to spectator status. This is not necessarily bad—it can prevent short-term profit-seeking that undermines safety. But it also lacks the accountability mechanisms that blockchain provides: on-chain voting, timelocks, and public transparency.
Consider the quantitative impact. With low founder equity, a simple majority vote by investors could replace the CEO. The super voting shares dilute that power. Let’s assume the founders hold 10% of common shares. Under a one-share-one-vote system, they have 10% voting power. With a 10x multiplier on their special shares, they effectively control 52% of the votes (assuming 10% of common + 90% of special shares, but the math is more complex). The exact numbers are not public, but the principle is clear: the founders can block any hostile takeover. This is a classic “poison pill” but packaged as a governance feature.
Contrarian: What the Bulls Got Right
Before dismissing this as a power grab, consider the counter-argument. In the blockchain space, we often romanticize “decentralization” as an end in itself. But the reality is that many successful projects rely on strong leadership. Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin wields immense influence through his public statements and research. Bitcoin’s development is guided by a handful of core maintainers. The difference is that in crypto, this influence is earned through reputation, not enforced by share structure. Anthropic’s approach is more explicit: it says, “We trust the founders to make the right long-term decisions, and we will protect them from market pressure.” That is not inherently wrong. In fact, it aligns with the crypto ethos of “code is law” if you consider the corporate charter as the code.
Moreover, the trustee system adds a layer of checks. The trustees are presumably independent and tasked with safeguarding the company’s mission. In blockchain terms, they act as a “governance guardian” or a “constitutional court.” The problem is that trustees are not elected by the community; they are appointed by the founders. This is a closed loop. But it is a more honest loop than the pseudo-decentralization of many DAOs, where a small group of whales control the vote behind a veil of token distribution.
The bulls might argue that this structure allows Anthropic to focus on AI safety without the distraction of quarterly earnings. They can say no to lucrative but dangerous contracts. They can invest in research that doesn’t have immediate ROI. In a bull market, where short-term greed often overrides long-term vision, that is a valuable feature. The crypto industry has seen this too: projects that resist the temptation to pump and dump often survive longer. The contrarian view is that Anthropic’s super voting rights are a feature, not a bug, for mission-driven organizations.
Signatures Embedded in the Narrative
Hype is a mask; the ledger is the face beneath it. The corporate ledger here shows a concentration of power that is antithetical to the blockchain promise. Yet, the ledger also reveals that this is a rational response to a flawed system. Every transaction leaves a scar on the chain. The Anthropic governance move is a scar on the corporate governance chain, but it may prevent deeper scars from short-term investor pressure. Numbers have no emotions, only consequences. The numbers here are voting percentages and equity stakes. The consequence is that the founders gain control, and investors lose influence. Whether that is good or bad depends on your perspective.
Takeaway: The Blockchain Lesson
Anthropic’s super voting rights are a mirror for the crypto industry. They show that governance is fundamentally about power, not about technology. The blockchain’s promise of trustless, decentralized governance is still a dream. In practice, human beings create structures that concentrate power, whether through tokens, shares, or super voting rights. The question is not whether centralization will happen, but who gets to be the centralizer.
From my audits of token distributions, I have seen projects that claim to be decentralized but where the team holds 80% of the supply. I have seen DAOs with low voter turnout where a single whale decides the outcome. Anthropic is at least transparent about its intentions. It is not pretending to be a democracy. It is a founder-led company, and it is using every legal tool to stay that way.
The blockchain industry should take note. If we want true decentralization, we need to design governance mechanisms that are resistant to capture. That means more than just token voting. It means quadratic voting, conviction voting, reputation systems, and on-chain checks and balances. The Anthropic case is a reminder that the corporate world is not our enemy; it is a testing ground for ideas. We can learn from their mistakes and their innovations.
So, the next time you see a crypto project with a “founder’s key” or a “multisig” that can upgrade the protocol, ask yourself: is this any different from Anthropic’s super voting rights? The answer is no. The only difference is that the blockchain version is often hidden behind buzzwords. The ledger remembers what the ego forgets. The ledger of corporate governance is just as unforgiving.
