On Sunday, AI giant Anthropic pledged 5% of its shares to a philanthropic fund—a huge commitment that appears exceptionally generous at first glance.
However, the stake will go to a fund controlled by Anthropic’s leadership, which prioritizes Effective Altruist causes. Those causes can include efforts such as spending millions to ensure shrimp farms use stun guns to kill seafood in what advocates describe as a more humane process.
Hours later, Elon Musk proposed a markedly different model: giving American children a direct stake in SpaceX. “Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America,” he wrote on X.
Sources say the giveaway would be worth nearly $11 billion at the company’s current market value and would be distributed through Trump Accounts.
The two proposals underscore a growing Silicon Valley debate: Should trillion-dollar companies channel their enormous fortunes into causes selected by their leaders, or help the next generation build wealth directly?
For an industry that repeatedly warns AI could displace workers and reshape their futures, giving people a financial stake in that future may be a more compelling response.
Brad Gerstner, founder, chairman and CEO of Altimeter Capital and the architect of Trump Accounts, told me Musk’s donation is only “the tip of the iceberg” when it comes to both the charitable contributions the accounts could receive and the number of Americans they could benefit.
Gerstner estimates that private contributions to Trump Accounts could reach $100 billion by the end of 2027, with other Silicon Valley leaders potentially joining donors such as Susan and Michael Dell, Ray Dalio and Gwynne Shotwell.
But the potentially bigger development involves who may soon become eligible.
At present, Trump Accounts are limited to citizens under 18. Deposited funds are invested in the stock market, allowing them to compound over time. When accountholders turn 18, they can use the money for purposes including college, a first home or a new business—or leave it invested for further growth.
DON’T MISS: Ari Kytsya (TikTok Star) Wiki, Biography, Age, Boyfriend, Family, Facts, and Many More. – NewsFinale
Gerstner said he is working to broaden Trump Accounts to include anyone under 40, with legislation potentially arriving within months. Under the proposed expansion, the accounts could also support retirement, education or business creation, while lawmakers would seek to make the funding permanent.
At a moment when Americans are worried about AI, concerned about its effect on employment and increasingly disillusioned with capitalism, the proposal could give more adults a way to invest in the future without creating dependence on the welfare state.
“Welfare checks do not compound, but ownership compounds,” Gerstner said. “You don’t help people by creating more dependency.”
“It sucks to not even know how to get in the game… But with these accounts, everyone has a million dollars within their grasp,” he added. “It makes sure every kid has a stake in the economy.”
That approach stands in contrast to Anthropic’s plan, which could involve nonprofit donations and direct distributions. The amounts and recipients have yet to be determined, but Anthropic would control those decisions.
Critics argue that this would reinforce a flawed philanthropic system that moves vast sums without producing meaningful improvements in people’s lives. They contend that many organizations in the sector spend as much on executives, advisers and consultants as they do on their stated charitable goals.
Interestingly, Anthropic or any other company seeking to distribute shares directly to children or young adults would currently need to follow Musk’s model.
Trump Accounts are the only existing infrastructure for distributing stock shares to young Americans. Yet the prospect of supporting an account bearing Trump’s name—especially only weeks before a contentious midterm election—could discourage many companies from participating.
There is also a legitimate concern that close ties between private companies and Trump Accounts could create moral hazards. For example, might the government be less inclined to challenge a merger involving a company that had donated billions to the accounts and to Americans’ futures, or give that company other advantages?
Regardless of one’s views on Trump, giving Americans a stake in the country’s future—and a greater sense of ownership in the American dream—could be an important first step toward helping them benefit from it.