Original: Wu Shuo Blockchain
TL;DR:
The concentrated listing of three major tech giants may spark one of the largest tech IPO waves in recent years: SpaceX’s target IPO valuation, combined with the latest funding valuations of OpenAI and Anthropic, has already exceeded $3.5 trillion. This not only tests the capital market’s ability to price innovative technologies but also sparks widespread discussion about its impact on liquidity.
SpaceX's valuation logic is shifting from aerospace operations to global infrastructure: the market's focus has gradually moved from rocket launches to Starlink's global communication network, emphasizing its long-term growth potential and infrastructure characteristics.
OpenAI and Anthropic may provide the first major investment targets in foundational models for capital markets: both companies represent the core productivity of generative AI, and their listings could drive a repricing of the AI sector and create competition for AI assets reliant primarily on narrative-driven valuations.
The "funding siphoning effect" of super IPOs may be overestimated by the market: historical experience shows that large IPOs more often reflect capital reallocation rather than liquidity disappearance, and are rarely direct triggers of systemic risk.
The crypto market faces阶段性 funding competition, but remains primarily driven by its own cycles: some AI-themed tokens may experience funding diversion pressure, but the long-term trajectory of the crypto market still depends more on macro liquidity, regulatory environment, and the Bitcoin cycle.
What truly matters is whether the high valuations can be justified: if future revenue growth, commercialization progress, or profit improvement fall below market expectations, the relevant companies and technology growth sectors may face valuation repricing pressure.
The capital market in 2026 is witnessing the most closely watched wave of tech IPOs in recent years.
The discussion surrounding the IPO processes of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic continues to intensify among Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the crypto markets. Based on SpaceX’s target IPO valuation and the latest funding valuations of OpenAI and Anthropic, the combined valuation of these three companies exceeds $3.5 trillion. If the related listing plans proceed as market expectations suggest, this will become one of the largest waves of tech company IPOs in recent years. SpaceX’s target valuation is approximately $1.75 trillion, OpenAI’s valuation is around $852 billion, and Anthropic’s valuation is about $965 billion. Notably, Anthropic’s current funding valuation has surpassed that of OpenAI, but this primarily reflects differences in funding rounds and market pricing expectations, not an indication that its commercial scale has exceeded OpenAI’s. Regardless of final pricing adjustments, this will become the largest and most far-reaching wave of tech company IPOs in recent years.
Such a massive scale has naturally raised market concerns about liquidity. Some investors believe that the listings of these three companies could draw away substantial capital, putting pressure on other growth stocks and even impacting the cryptocurrency market. Others worry that the sustained enthusiasm for AI and aerospace concepts is creating a new asset bubble; if post-listing performance falls short of expectations, it could trigger a repricing of valuations across the entire technology sector and even the broader risk asset market.
At the same time, some argue that concerns about the "funding siphoning effect" have been significantly exaggerated. The total market capitalization of the U.S. stock market has reached tens of trillions of dollars, and super IPOs represent more of a reallocation of capital rather than its disappearance. Historically, similar discussions arose with Alibaba and Saudi Aramco, yet neither ultimately triggered a market crash. So what’s different this time? What do the listings of these three companies truly signify? Can they really cause a collapse in stock and crypto markets?
SpaceX: What the market is buying is no longer just rockets, but global infrastructure.
If one had to choose the most legendary among the three companies, SpaceX is undoubtedly the strongest candidate. Since its founding in 2002, Elon Musk has spent over two decades transforming it from a startup into a core force in the global commercial space industry. For a long time, public perception of SpaceX was largely limited to rocket launches and space exploration, but today, the capital market’s valuation logic for SpaceX has fundamentally shifted.
According to publicly disclosed prospectus documents, the company's revenue in 2025 is approximately $18.67 billion. Of this, revenue from Starlink-related operations is about $11.39 billion, accounting for roughly 61% of total revenue and becoming the company's primary source of income. Compared to rocket launch services, Starlink clearly has greater growth potential. By deploying a low-Earth-orbit satellite network, Starlink is building a global data communications infrastructure, with a business model more akin to an internet platform than a traditional aerospace company. For investors, SpaceX's core value is no longer its rockets, but a global user-facing network platform.
This is also one of the key reasons some investors are willing to support its approximately $1.75 trillion targeted IPO valuation. From a valuation perspective, some investors view SpaceX’s current valuation logic as more akin to a “space version of Amazon” or a “space-based AWS,” with market focus gradually shifting from rocket launch services to the global communications infrastructure network represented by Starlink. Theoretically, as network deployment matures, the marginal cost of acquiring new users is expected to decline, while user growth could generate long-term, stable cash flows. Meanwhile, government contracts, commercial launches, and future commercial applications of Starship also provide additional growth potential for the company.
Of course, such a high valuation is not without controversy. According to public data, the company still recorded a net loss of approximately $49 billion in 2025. For traditional investors, it may be difficult to understand how a company that has not yet achieved stable profitability could receive a valuation in the trillions. However, Wall Street clearly places greater emphasis on long-term growth potential. Whether it’s the expansion of Starlink or the development of Starship, both are typical examples of projects requiring heavy upfront investment. The market is willing to tolerate current pressure on profits, provided there is confidence that these investments will translate into larger market share in the future.
More importantly, SpaceX’s IPO is not just a corporate financing event, but also a significant milestone for the commercial space industry. For a long time, the space industry has been regarded as capital-intensive, with long development cycles and limited exit pathways. If SpaceX successfully completes its IPO, it could significantly enhance the fundraising capabilities and valuation levels across the entire supply chain—from satellite manufacturing and ground communication equipment to aerospace materials suppliers—all of which may benefit as a result.
However, precisely because of SpaceX’s massive scale, its IPO has become a major source of concern regarding market liquidity pressure. Based on current market rumors about the offering structure, SpaceX could become one of the largest IPOs in history. For large institutional investors, this means they must pre-emptively rebalance their portfolios to free up capital for the new share subscription. Some tech growth stocks, high-valuation AI-themed stocks, and even certain risk assets may serve as sources of funding. As a result, many analysts have dubbed SpaceX the “super liquidity magnet” of this IPO wave.
OpenAI and Anthropic: Two Tickets to the AI Era
If SpaceX represents the infrastructure of the future, then OpenAI and Anthropic represent the productivity of the future.
Over the past three years, generative AI has rapidly evolved from a laboratory technology into one of the most important investment themes in global capital markets. Since the release of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence has nearly reshaped the entire development logic of the tech industry. Whether it’s Microsoft, Google, or Amazon, all are engaged in a new round of competition centered around AI. At the heart of this wave stand OpenAI and Anthropic.
OpenAI is widely regarded as one of the primary beneficiaries of the current generative AI wave. With ChatGPT, the company rapidly transitioned from a research institution to a commercial platform. Its API services, enterprise solutions, and ecosystem partnerships are driving rapid revenue growth. Although the company remains in a high-investment phase, investors generally believe OpenAI has the potential to become the next-generation software platform. After completing a new funding round in March 2026, the company’s valuation reached approximately $852 billion, and it has confidentially submitted its IPO documents. The market widely speculates that, if the future IPO proceeds smoothly, its valuation could further approach the $1 trillion range; however, no official valuation guidance has been disclosed to date.
Compared to OpenAI, Anthropic’s development path has been relatively low-key, yet its growth rate has equally drawn market attention. Founded much later than OpenAI, the company has quickly gained recognition from enterprise clients through its Claude series models and sustained investment in AI safety and reliability. According to the latest funding disclosures, Anthropic’s valuation has reached approximately $965 billion, surpassing OpenAI’s current funding valuation of about $852 billion. Meanwhile, the company has also confidentially filed its IPO documents. For many institutional investors, Anthropic represents an alternative AI development path—one that places greater emphasis on enterprise use cases, risk management, and long-term governance structures.
From a capital markets perspective, the IPOs of OpenAI and Anthropic hold significance far beyond the two companies themselves. Over the past few years, AI has nearly dominated the global technology stock valuation framework, yet investors have had extremely limited direct access to pure-play AI leader companies. NVIDIA is primarily a provider of computing power, while Microsoft and Google are comprehensive tech platforms. OpenAI and Anthropic, however, are among the few companies that directly represent the value of the large model industry.
This means that once both companies go public, global capital will have the opportunity to invest directly in large foundational model companies for the first time. For many institutions, this appeal may even surpass that of some traditional tech giants. Precisely because of this, many investors are beginning to worry: as capital concentrates on AI leaders, could other tech assets—and even the crypto market—face significant diversion?
Why are markets concerned that the three IPOs will "drain" liquidity?
In fact, whenever there is a super IPO in the market, similar concerns resurface.
The logic behind it is not complicated. An IPO essentially channels new stock supply from the primary market to the secondary market, and the funds used by institutional investors to subscribe to new issues do not materialize out of thin air. For large pension funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, and hedge funds, participating in new share offerings often means reallocating capital from existing portfolios. Therefore, when multiple extremely large IPOs occur simultaneously, the movement of capital from other assets into new issues is almost inevitable.
From this perspective, SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic indeed possess the conditions to generate a "siphon effect." Based on current market expectations, the combined valuation of these three companies exceeds $3.5 trillion. Even though the actual proportion of tradable shares is far lower than this figure, it is still sufficient to become one of the most important capital allocation directions in the global financial markets. For many institutions that remain long-term believers in AI and technological innovation, participating in these companies' IPOs is not just an investment opportunity, but also a strategic allocation.
The market's primary concern is not the IPO itself, but rather where the funds might be drawn from. If institutional investors choose to reduce their holdings in existing tech stocks to participate in the subscription, certain growth sectors could face short-term pressure. If the source of funds expands further to include high-risk assets, some cryptocurrency assets may also be affected. Therefore, whenever a major IPO approaches, discussions about "liquidity suction" inevitably arise.
However, the issue is that theoretical fund diversion does not equate to a market crash.
The total market capitalization of U.S.-listed stocks is nearing $80 trillion, with daily trading volumes also reaching substantial levels. Even if all three companies ultimately complete their listings, the proportion of shares actually entering market circulation remains limited. Historical experience shows that what truly determines market direction is never the additional supply of new stocks, but rather the overall liquidity environment. During periods of monetary easing, even massive IPOs are often quickly absorbed by the market; during periods of monetary tightening, the market may still experience a correction due to economic slowdown or rising interest rates, even without any IPOs.
In other words, a super IPO acts more like an amplifier than a root cause. If the market itself is fragile, large IPOs may exacerbate volatility; but if market liquidity is abundant and risk appetite is high, IPOs are often just part of a broader capital rotation.
What does historical experience tell us?
Looking back at the capital markets over the past two decades, it is not uncommon for large IPOs to attract attention, but cases that have actually triggered systemic risk are extremely rare.
In 2014, when Alibaba listed on the New York Stock Exchange, it set a global record for fundraising at the time. At that time, the market similarly feared that such a massive capital raise would impact the U.S. stock market. However, it turned out that Alibaba’s listing primarily drew global capital’s attention to China’s internet industry without altering the overall trend of the U.S. stock market. In the years that followed, the U.S. stock market continued its bull market trajectory.
In 2019, Aramco completed a financing of nearly $30 billion, once again breaking the global IPO record. Given the slowing global economic growth and rising geopolitical risks at the time, many analysts believed such a massive fundraising requirement could impact market liquidity. However, the final outcome again demonstrated that the market’s capacity to absorb super-sized IPOs far exceeded expectations.
Even the highly anticipated IPO of Arm in recent years did not have a decisive impact on the overall trend of tech stocks. While short-term volatility did occur, it primarily reflected internal fund reallocation within the industry rather than a disappearance of market liquidity.
The fundamental reason for this phenomenon is that capital markets are not a fixed-capacity pool. The listing of high-quality assets often attracts new capital into the market, rather than merely drawing funds away from existing assets. Especially for global institutional investors, when truly scarce assets emerge, they are typically accompanied by new allocation demand, not just internal reallocation.
Therefore, based on historical experience, it is not surprising that SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic have caused market volatility, but equating them directly with a market crash lacks sufficient grounds.
Impact on the stock market: Short-term volatility is inevitable, but long-term, it resembles a valuation reconfiguration.
If the three IPOs were to have the most direct impact on any market, the answer is undoubtedly technology stocks.
Over the past few years, AI has become one of the most powerful investment themes in global capital markets. From NVIDIA to cloud computing, from data centers to software services, numerous companies have received valuation premiums due to their association with AI. However, companies that truly represent the value creation of large models have never entered public markets. The emergence of OpenAI and Anthropic means investors now have the opportunity to directly invest in AI’s core assets for the first time.
This change is likely to lead to a repricing within the AI sector.
Companies that partially rely on concept-driven narratives may face a contraction in their valuation premiums, as investors now have access to more pure-play AI opportunities. Meanwhile, companies that genuinely benefit from the expansion of AI infrastructure—such as computing power providers, data center operators, and enterprise software platforms—are likely to continue receiving funding support.
The impact of SpaceX is different. For satellite communications, commercial spaceflight, and related infrastructure companies, SpaceX’s listing will become a new industry valuation benchmark. For the first time, the market will have a publicly traded leader in commercial spaceflight as a reference point, which could drive a repricing of the entire supply chain.
From a long-term perspective, the listing of these three companies is more likely to reinforce the importance of the technology sector rather than diminish it. Over time, once they meet the relevant criteria and are included in major indices, substantial amounts of ETFs and index funds will passively allocate to these companies. At that point, the scale of global capital inflows could even surpass that of the IPO phase itself.
Therefore, for the stock market, what truly matters is not the performance on the IPO day, but whether these companies can deliver the growth expectations set by the market over the coming years.
Impact on the crypto market: Competition does exist, but it doesn't necessarily mean negative news.
Compared to the stock market, the cryptocurrency market is more sensitive to changes in capital flow, leading to more intense discussions.
Over the past few years, AI and Crypto have been the two primary focus areas for venture capital. Some venture funds and growth capital firms have invested in both AI and Crypto sectors, with significant overlap in their funding sources. Once OpenAI and Anthropic officially enter public markets, it is highly likely that a portion of institutional capital will shift toward AI assets.
For some AI-themed tokens, this competition may be particularly pronounced.
Before AI companies go public, many investors choose to express their confidence in the artificial intelligence industry through AI-related tokens. But once OpenAI or Anthropic become publicly traded assets, investors naturally begin to ask: If they can directly hold the most core companies in the AI industry, is it still necessary to take on the higher volatility and risk of some conceptual tokens?
From this perspective, certain AI tokens driven by narratives, VC-themed projects, and crypto assets lacking genuine revenue streams may indeed face pressure from capital diversion.
However, extrapolating this pressure into an “crypto market crash” is equally unfounded.
Bitcoin and the broader crypto market have gradually developed relatively independent operational dynamics. ETF fund flows, regulatory environments, global monetary policy, and Bitcoin’s own cycles typically exert more decisive influence than a single IPO event. Historically, the U.S. stock market and the crypto market have both risen in tandem and diverged significantly, making it difficult to explain their movements based on a single event.
More importantly, AI and blockchain are not entirely competitive. As the scale of AI applications continues to expand, areas such as decentralized computing networks, on-chain data markets, and AI Agent infrastructure may instead gain new opportunities for development. In the long term, the prosperity of the AI industry may not weaken Crypto but could instead create new fusion scenarios.
What truly requires caution is not the IPO, but the valuation expectations.
If there are real risks associated with the three IPOs, those risks do not come from the listings themselves, but from market expectations for future growth.
Whether it’s SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic, their current valuations are already based on extremely optimistic future assumptions. Investors are willing to assign trillion-dollar valuations because they believe these companies will become the world’s most critical infrastructure platforms. If revenue growth slows, commercialization falls short of expectations, or profitability improves more slowly than the market anticipates, a valuation repricing will be inevitable.
This risk will first impact the AI sector and high-growth tech stocks, not the entire market. The higher the market's expectations for the future, the greater the adjustment tends to be when reality diverges from those expectations.
From this perspective, what the market truly needs to focus on is not the IPO itself, but the ability to deliver performance after the IPO.
Conclusion
The IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic resemble a collective pricing of the next generation of technological infrastructure and AI platforms by global capital markets, rather than a harbinger of market collapse. In the short term, capital reallocation, sector rotation, and valuation repricing are almost inevitable, and some AI-themed stocks and crypto assets may also face competitive pressure. However, historical experience shows that super IPOs rarely serve as direct triggers of systemic risk and are even less likely to independently determine the long-term trajectory of stock or crypto markets.
What truly determines market trends remains the macroeconomic liquidity environment, corporate profitability, and investor risk appetite. For investors, rather than worrying whether the three major IPOs will crash the market, it’s more important to focus on whether the growth logic behind these trillion-dollar valuations can ultimately be realized. After all, capital markets are never afraid of grand visions—it’s unfulfilled expectations that often hurt the market.