Solana founder questions motives behind AI slowdown

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has questioned the financial motives behind an AI slowdown proposal backed by Dario Amodei, Sam Altman and Elon Musk on Sept. 13.

Yakovenko’s X post reduced his response to four words: “Profitability at $1 trillion mcap.” He did not identify which company the figure referred to or provide revenue, valuation or profitability calculations supporting the comment.

The remark responded to a debate started by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who published an essay calling for slower advances in frontier artificial intelligence. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman endorsed part of the proposal, while Musk wrote that “Dario is right,” according to Reuters.

Profitability at $1t mcap https://t.co/wEpIG4cJ9N

— toly 🇺🇸 (@toly) September 13, 2026

Yakovenko links AI pacing to financial incentives

Yakovenko’s comment presented profitability as a possible motive for slowing model development, but the Solana co-founder framed the idea as a sarcastic observation. His post contained no evidence that Anthropic, OpenAI or xAI had coordinated their statements for financial reasons.

No named company has confirmed that its support for slower development depends on reaching a $1 trillion valuation. Amodei’s proposal instead cites model-control failures, cyber risks and the speed at which AI systems are helping create newer systems.

Reuters reported that Anthropic and OpenAI were preparing for potential initial public offerings. The report described financial incentives surrounding model development but did not establish that either company had reached a $1 trillion market capitalization or had made profitability contingent on that valuation.

Because the companies remain privately held, references to market capitalization can only describe estimates from private transactions or proposed listings. Yakovenko did not explain whether his figure referred to Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI or the frontier AI sector collectively.

His statement therefore represents personal commentary, not a disclosed financial projection from Solana Labs, Anthropic, OpenAI or xAI. No Solana Foundation statement connected the blockchain network or its SOL token to the AI policy dispute.

Amodei wants frontier AI development paced, not halted

In his “We Must Pace the Frontier” essay, Amodei said developers should slow the rate at which they improve model capabilities. He distinguished pacing from stopping model training or ending technical research.

“We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” Amodei wrote. He said progress could remain fast while developers spend more time testing safeguards, studying model behavior and allowing outside evaluators to examine their work.

The proposal contains three stages. Anthropic plans to give third-party evaluators ongoing access comparable to the access held by internal employees who assess risk. Amodei named the Model Evaluation and Threat Research organization, known as METR, as an example.

A second stage asks frontier AI companies in democratic countries to coordinate on common safety requirements and limits for unchecked capability growth. Amodei acknowledged that parts of such coordination could raise antitrust issues and might require narrow government authorization.

His third stage calls for international coordination, including possible agreements with China. The essay describes several possible levels, ranging from restrictions on AI-assisted biological weapons to an eventual limit on rapid, automated model improvement.

Amodei presented a comprehensive pause as the least likely form of international agreement because verification would be difficult. He argued that any arrangement should preserve the technological position of the United States and its allies.

Altman and Musk have supported parts of the plan

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman gave the proposal a direct endorsement in a Sept. 12 post. “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier,” Altman wrote.

Altman specifically accepted Amodei’s call for embedded outside evaluators. “Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same,” he said. OpenAI promised more information but supplied no implementation date, evaluator name or access terms.

Musk responded more briefly. Reuters and the Financial Times reported that he reposted Amodei’s essay and wrote, “Dario is right.” The public response did not set out which parts of the three-stage plan xAI would adopt.

Available statements therefore support including Musk in the group of executives who backed Amodei. They do not establish that Musk, Altman and Amodei jointly developed the plan or agreed on its regulatory details.

None of the three executives publicly endorsed Yakovenko’s suggested connection between pacing and trillion-dollar valuations. Yakovenko’s line remains his characterization of their motives.

Sacks rejects industry coordination as necessary

In a separate X post, David Sacks said Anthropic and OpenAI could slow their own development without requiring competitors or lawmakers to participate.

“You guys are the frontier,” Sacks wrote, addressing Amodei and Altman. He described the two companies as holding a “duopoly on frontier intelligence,” a claim based on his assessment of model ability, revenue growth and market share.

Sacks said he would support a voluntary slowdown if unreleased systems presented risks serious enough to concern their developers. He disputed the need for an antitrust exemption, a regulatory approval system or evaluators with authority over competing laboratories.

However, his post accused the companies of pursuing possible “regulatory capture,” but it presented no evidence of an agreement between Anthropic and OpenAI to exclude competitors. Neither company had publicly accepted Sacks’ description as of Sept. 13.

Sacks raised product-liability exposure as another possible reason for companies to favor more predictable systems. He argued that customers already punish models that behave in unauthorized or unreliable ways. The companies have not confirmed that liability concerns drove their endorsements.

The post questioned whether China would participate in a global AI agreement. Amodei’s essay recognizes the same verification problem, although Amodei still supports negotiations on narrowly defined risks.

Outside evaluations are the next promised step

Anthropic has committed to inviting an outside review team into its internal safety process. Its essay says reviewers should receive company laptops, office access and permissions similar to internal risk-assessment staff, subject to legal and confidentiality restrictions.

The planned reviewers would be allowed to publish findings without Anthropic controlling their conclusions. Limited redactions could cover legally privileged, security-sensitive, commercially sensitive or third-party confidential information. No evaluator contract or starting date accompanied the essay. OpenAI has promised to adopt a similar system. Altman said the company would disclose more details “soon,” leaving the evaluator, scope and publication rules unanswered.

U.S. lawmakers are considering more restrictive approaches. As crypto.news previously reported, a Sanders-Casar proposal seeks a permanent ban on artificial superintelligence and a temporary suspension of advanced AI work until a new federal regulator establishes safety rules. The full bill had not been formally introduced when its sponsors released their summary.

Cybersecurity concerns remain part of the policy discussion. In related coverage, a Bank for International Settlements paper warned that AI could reduce software-patching windows from weeks to minutes as automated systems identify and exploit vulnerabilities faster.

Amodei has asked frontier laboratories to adopt embedded evaluations and coordinate on safety standards, while Altman has committed OpenAI to outside evaluation without publishing a timetable.