TL;DR

The concurrent public listings of three tech giants may trigger one of the largest technology IPO waves in recent years: SpaceX’s target IPO valuation, combined with OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest funding valuations, has already surpassed $3.5 trillion. This not only tests capital markets’ ability to price cutting-edge innovation but also sparks widespread debate on liquidity implications.

SpaceX’s valuation logic is shifting from aerospace operations to global infrastructure: market focus has transitioned from rocket launches to Starlink’s emerging global communications network, emphasizing its long-term growth potential and infrastructure characteristics.

OpenAI and Anthropic could provide the first large-scale investment vehicles for foundational AI models in capital markets: representing core productivity engines of generative AI, their public listings may drive a re-pricing of the AI sector and create competitive pressure on AI-themed assets that rely heavily on narrative-driven momentum.

The “capital suction effect” of mega-IPOs may be overestimated by markets: historical evidence shows large IPOs typically reflect capital reallocation rather than liquidity destruction, and rarely serve as direct triggers for systemic risk.

The crypto market faces temporary capital competition but remains primarily driven by its own cyclical dynamics: certain AI-themed tokens may experience capital diversion pressures, yet the long-term trajectory of crypto markets is still more dependent on macro liquidity, regulatory environments, and Bitcoin cycle patterns.

What truly matters is whether high valuations can be justified: if future revenue growth, commercialization progress, or profitability improvements fall short of market expectations, these companies and the broader tech growth sector could face significant valuation re-rating pressure.

The 2026 capital markets are poised to witness one of the most closely watched technology IPO waves in recent history.

Discussions around the public listing processes of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic continue to intensify across Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the crypto ecosystem. Based on SpaceX’s target IPO valuation and the latest funding valuations of OpenAI and Anthropic, the combined market cap of these three firms exceeds $3.5 trillion. If these listings proceed as expected, this would represent one of the largest technology IPO waves in recent memory. SpaceX’s target valuation stands at approximately $1.75 trillion, OpenAI at around $85.2 billion, and Anthropic at roughly $96.5 billion. Notably, Anthropic’s current funding valuation surpasses OpenAI’s—though this reflects differences in funding rounds and market pricing expectations, not necessarily superior commercial scale. Regardless of final pricing adjustments, this will become the largest and most far-reaching technology IPO wave in recent history.

Such immense scale naturally raises concerns about liquidity. Some investors fear that the listings could draw massive capital away, pressuring other growth stocks and even disrupting the crypto market. Others worry that the sustained hype around AI and aerospace concepts is forming a new asset bubble, which, if underperformed post-IPO, could trigger broad re-pricing across the tech sector and risk assets.

Yet, counterarguments suggest that concerns over the “capital suction effect” are exaggerated. With U.S. equity markets now totaling several hundred trillion dollars in aggregate market cap, mega-IPOs primarily reflect capital redistribution rather than disappearance. Historically, both Alibaba and Saudi Aramco sparked similar debates without becoming catalysts for market crashes. So what’s different this time? What do these listings truly signify? Can they actually destabilize equities and crypto?

SpaceX: The Market Isn’t Buying Rockets — It’s Buying Global Infrastructure

If one company among the trio stands out as the most legendary, SpaceX is undoubtedly the strongest candidate. Since its founding in 2002, Elon Musk has transformed a startup into the epicenter of the global commercial space industry over two decades. For years, external perception of SpaceX centered on rocket launches and space exploration. However, capital market valuation logic has undergone a fundamental shift.

According to publicly disclosed prospectus documents, the company generated approximately $18.67 billion in revenue in 2025. Of this, Starlink-related business revenue reached about $11.39 billion, accounting for roughly 61% of total revenue—now the company’s primary income stream. Compared to rocket launch services, Starlink clearly offers greater growth potential. By deploying a low-earth orbit satellite network, Starlink is building a globally scalable data communication infrastructure. Its business model increasingly resembles that of an internet platform rather than a traditional aerospace firm. To investors, SpaceX’s core value lies not in rockets, but in a network platform capable of serving a global user base.

This is one key reason why some investors are willing to support a ~$1.75 trillion target IPO valuation. From a valuation perspective, many see SpaceX’s current logic aligning more closely with a “space-based Amazon” or “space AWS.” Market attention has shifted from rocket launches to Starlink’s representation of a global communications infrastructure network. Theoretically, as the network matures, marginal costs for new users may decline, while user growth could generate long-term, stable cash flows. Meanwhile, government contracts, commercial launches, and future Starship commercial applications provide additional growth avenues.

Naturally, such a high valuation invites controversy. According to public data, the company still recorded a net loss of approximately $4.9 billion in 2025. For traditional investors, assigning a trillion-dollar valuation to a company without stable profitability seems incomprehensible. Yet Wall Street appears more focused on long-term growth potential. Both Starlink expansion and Starship development are classic high-upfront-investment initiatives. Markets tolerate current profit pressure on the premise that these investments will translate into larger market share down the line.

More importantly, SpaceX’s listing isn’t just a corporate fundraising event—it’s seen as a milestone for the commercial space industry. Historically, space has been viewed as capital-intensive, long-cycle, and with limited exit options. A successful public listing by SpaceX would significantly enhance financing capacity and valuation levels across the entire supply chain—from satellite manufacturing and ground equipment to aerospace materials suppliers—potentially benefiting all stakeholders.

However, due to SpaceX’s sheer size, its IPO has become a major source of liquidity concern. Based on circulated issuance plans, SpaceX could become one of the largest IPOs in history. For large institutional investors, this means needing to proactively rebalance portfolios to free up capital for new share subscriptions. Some tech growth stocks, high-multiple AI-themed names, and even certain risk assets may become sources of capital. As a result, many analysts refer to SpaceX as the “supernova capital magnet” of this IPO wave.

OpenAI & Anthropic: Two Tickets to the Age of AI Productivity

If SpaceX symbolizes future infrastructure, then OpenAI and Anthropic represent future productivity.

Over the past three years, generative AI has rapidly evolved from lab experiments into one of the most important investment themes in global capital markets. Since the launch of ChatGPT, AI has nearly reshaped the entire tech industry’s development paradigm. Whether Microsoft, Google, or Amazon, all are now engaged in a new round of competition centered on AI. At the heart of this wave stand OpenAI and Anthropic.

OpenAI is widely regarded as one of the most significant beneficiaries of the generative AI surge. Leveraging ChatGPT, the company swiftly transitioned from a research institution to a commercial platform. API services, enterprise solutions, and ecosystem partnerships are driving rapid revenue growth. Although still in a high-investment phase, investors generally believe OpenAI has the potential to become the next-generation software platform. After completing its March 2026 funding round, the company reached a valuation of approximately $85.2 billion and has secretly filed IPO documents. Market consensus suggests that if the IPO proceeds smoothly, its valuation could further approach the trillion-dollar range—though no official guidance has been released.

In contrast, Anthropic’s development path has been relatively quiet, yet its growth pace has drawn significant market attention. Though founded much later than OpenAI, it has rapidly gained enterprise client recognition through the Claude series models and sustained investments in AI safety and reliability. According to the latest funding disclosures, Anthropic’s valuation reached approximately $96.5 billion—surpassing OpenAI’s current ~$85.2 billion funding valuation. Simultaneously, the company has also secretly filed IPO documents. For many institutional investors, Anthropic represents an alternative AI development trajectory—one prioritizing enterprise use cases, risk control, and long-term governance structures.

From a capital markets perspective, the significance of OpenAI and Anthropic’s listings extends far beyond the companies themselves. Over the past few years, AI narratives have dominated global tech stock valuation frameworks—but direct investment opportunities in pure-play AI leaders have remained scarce. NVIDIA serves primarily as a compute provider; Microsoft and Google are integrated tech platforms. OpenAI and Anthropic are among the few entities that directly embody the value proposition of large language models.

This means that once these two companies enter public markets, global capital will gain its first direct exposure to large-scale foundational model firms. For many institutions, this appeal may even surpass that of some traditional tech giants. Hence, many investors are concerned: when capital concentrates on AI leaders, could other tech assets—and even the crypto market—face noticeable capital diversion?

Why Do Markets Fear These Three IPOs Will “Drain” Liquidity?

In fact, similar concerns resurface every time a mega-IPO emerges.

The underlying logic is straightforward: IPOs represent a transfer of new shares from the primary to the secondary market, and institutional capital used in subscription does not appear ex nihilo. For large pension funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, and hedge funds, participating in new issues often requires reallocating capital from existing portfolios. Thus, when multiple super-sized IPOs occur simultaneously, capital flowing from other assets into new shares 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 the three firms exceeds $3.5 trillion. Even if the actual float ratio is far below this figure, it remains sufficient to become one of the most significant capital allocation directions in global markets. For long-term investors bullish on AI and technological innovation, participating in these IPOs is not merely an investment opportunity—it’s a strategic positioning move.

The core concern isn’t the IPO itself, but where capital might flow out. If institutional investors choose to sell existing tech stocks to fund new issue subscriptions, certain growth sectors may face short-term pressure. If capital sources extend further into high-risk assets, some crypto assets could also be affected. Therefore, whenever a major IPO approaches, discussions about “liquidity hemorrhage” inevitably arise.

But the issue is: theoretical capital diversion doesn’t equal market collapse.

Total U.S. listed equity market cap is nearing $80 trillion, with daily trading volume reaching substantial levels. Even if all three companies complete their listings, the actual circulating share ratio will remain limited. Historical evidence shows that what truly drives market direction is not new supply, but overall liquidity conditions. During periods of monetary easing, even massive IPOs are quickly absorbed; during tightening cycles, markets may still correct due to economic slowdowns or rising interest rates—even without new IPOs.

In other words, mega-IPOs act more like amplifiers than root causes. If the market is inherently fragile, large IPOs may exacerbate volatility; but if liquidity is ample and risk appetite is high, IPOs are simply part of normal capital rotation.

What Do Historical Experiences Tell Us?

Looking back over the past two decades, large IPOs drawing attention is common—but instances causing systemic risk are extremely rare.

In 2014, Alibaba’s listing on the NYSE set a global record for fundraising at the time. Then, markets feared the massive capital influx would impact U.S. equities. Yet, in reality, Alibaba’s listing primarily attracted global capital toward China’s internet sector without altering the broader U.S. market trend. Subsequent years saw continued bull market momentum.

In 2019, Saudi Aramco completed a near-$30 billion fundraising, again breaking the global IPO record. Given slowing global growth and rising geopolitical risks, many analysts believed such massive capital demand could affect market liquidity. Yet, the outcome proved that markets’ capacity to absorb mega-IPOs far exceeded expectations.

Even recently scrutinized listings like Arm did not decisively impact the broader tech stock trajectory. Short-term volatility occurred, but it was largely internal capital reallocation within the sector—not a disappearance of overall market liquidity.

The fundamental reason behind this phenomenon lies in the fact that capital markets are not fixed-capacity pools. High-quality asset listings often attract new capital into the system, not merely siphon from existing assets. Especially for global institutional investors, when truly scarce opportunities emerge, they tend to come with new allocation demands rather than simple internal reallocations.

Thus, historically speaking, market volatility triggered by SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic is unsurprising—but equating it directly with market collapse lacks sufficient basis.

Impact on Equity Markets: Short-Term Volatility Inevitable, Long-Term More Likely a Valuation Reconfiguration

If there’s any market most directly impacted by these three IPOs, the answer is clearly tech stocks.

Over the past few years, AI has become one of the strongest investment themes in global capital markets. From NVIDIA to cloud computing, data centers to software services, countless companies have received valuation premiums due to AI exposure. Yet, the true representatives of large model value creation have never entered public markets. The emergence of OpenAI and Anthropic means investors now have their first direct access to core AI assets.

This shift could lead to a re-pricing within the AI sector.

Companies relying heavily on conceptual narratives may face compressed valuation premiums, as investors now have purer AI targets. Meanwhile, firms genuinely benefiting from AI infrastructure expansion—such as compute providers, data center operators, and enterprise software platforms—may continue to attract capital.

SpaceX’s impact differs. For satellite communications, commercial space, and related infrastructure firms, SpaceX’s listing will become a new industry valuation benchmark. The market will finally have a publicly traded commercial space leader as a reference point, potentially triggering a re-pricing across the entire supply chain.

From a long-term view, these three listings are more likely to reinforce the importance of the tech sector than weaken it. Over time, once these companies meet eligibility criteria and are included in major indices, vast amounts of ETFs and index funds will passively allocate to them. The scale of global capital inflows could even exceed the IPO phase itself.

Therefore, for equity markets, what truly matters isn’t the IPO day performance, but whether these companies can deliver on the growth expectations baked into their trillion-dollar valuations over the coming years.

Impact on Crypto Markets: Competition Exists, But Not Necessarily Bearish

Compared to equities, crypto markets are more sensitive to shifts in capital flows, making discussions around this topic particularly intense.

Over the past few years, AI and Crypto have been the two dominant themes for venture capital. Some risk funds and growth capital simultaneously invest in both domains, creating clear overlap in funding sources. Once OpenAI and Anthropic enter public markets, a shift of institutional capital toward AI assets is almost inevitable.

This competition may be especially pronounced for certain AI-themed tokens.

Before public listings, many investors expressed support for the AI industry via AI-related tokens. But once OpenAI or Anthropic becomes a publicly traded entity, investors naturally ask: if we can directly hold the core company of the AI industry, is it still worth bearing the higher volatility and risk of concept-driven tokens?

From this angle, AI tokens reliant on narrative, VC-backed projects, and those lacking real revenue may indeed face capital diversion pressure.

However, extrapolating this pressure into a “crypto market crash” lacks foundation.

Bitcoin and the broader crypto market have gradually developed relatively independent operating logic. ETF inflows, regulatory developments, global monetary policy, and Bitcoin’s own cycle typically carry more weight than a single IPO event. Historically, equity and crypto markets have shown both synchronized rallies and clear divergences—making it difficult to explain their movements through singular events.

More importantly, AI and blockchain are not purely competitive. As AI applications scale, new opportunities may emerge in decentralized compute networks, on-chain data markets, and AI agent infrastructure. Long-term, AI’s prosperity need not weaken crypto—it may instead create new convergence scenarios.

The Real Risk Isn’t the IPO—It’s the Valuation Expectation

If there’s a genuine risk associated with these three IPOs, it doesn’t stem from the listing itself—but from market expectations for future growth.

For SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic alike, current valuations are built on extremely optimistic assumptions about the future. Investors assign trillions in valuation because they believe these companies will become the world’s most critical infrastructure platforms. If revenue growth slows, commercialization lags, or profitability improves more slowly than expected, valuation re-rating will be unavoidable.

This risk initially impacts not the entire market, but the AI sector and high-growth tech stocks. The higher the market’s forward expectations, the greater the potential adjustment when reality falls short.

From this perspective, what markets should truly monitor isn’t the IPO itself, but the ability of these companies to deliver on the growth promises embedded in their multi-trillion-dollar valuations.

Conclusion

The public listings of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic represent a global capital markets’ concentrated pricing of next-generation tech infrastructure and AI platforms—not a precursor to market collapse. In the short term, capital reallocation, sector rotation, and valuation re-pricing are nearly inevitable. Some AI-themed stocks and crypto assets may face competitive pressure. But based on historical precedent, mega-IPOs rarely serve as direct triggers for systemic risk, nor can they singly determine the long-term direction of equities or crypto.

Ultimately, what determines market trends are macro liquidity conditions, corporate profitability, and investor risk appetite. Rather than worrying whether these three IPOs will crash the market, investors should focus on whether the growth logic behind these trillion-dollar valuations can ultimately be delivered. After all, capital markets don’t fear grand visions—but they are wounded by unmet expectations.

Original: Wu Shuo Blockchain