I can't believe I'm about to defend VCs and "senior management" but here goes.
I've worked for two start-ups in my life.
The first start-up had dog-shit technology (initially) and top-notch management. CEO told me early on that VCs invest on the quality of management because they trust good senior executives to hire good researchers and let them pivot into profitable areas (and pivoting is almost always needed).
I thought the CEO was full of shit and simply patting himself on the back. Company pivoted HARD and IPOed around 2006 and now has a MC of ~ $10 billion.
The second start-up I worked with was founded by a Nobel laureate and the tech was based on his research. This time management was dog-shit. Management fumbled the tech and went out of business.
===
Not saying Altman deserves uncritical praise. All I'm saying is that I used to diminish the importance of quality senior leadership.
The interesting thing is you used economic values to show their importance, not what innovations or changes they achieved. Which is fine for ordinary companies, but OpenAI is supposed to be a non-profit, so these metrics should not be relevant. Otherwise, what's the difference?
My take is its not cheap to do what they are doing and adding a capped for-profit side is an interesting take. Afterall, OpenAI's mission clearly states that AGI is happening and if thats true, those profit caps are probably trivial to meet.