I think it'll be exactly $500B. I assume this will be the 500-600B option, not the 400-500B option, given that the first one is <300B. So I'll bet on that one. Please please don't make me regret that

@Bayesian Please confirm $500Bn exactly is treated as 500-600 bin.

Also how much effort / precision goes into finding the amount?
This question is in view of articles like https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-tops-spacex-world-most-213825041.html
"OpenAI has overtaken SpaceX to become the world’s most valuable private company after a $6.6 billion employee share sale at a $500 billion valuation."

Do you take such articles at face value that it is exactly $500Bn or do you dig into details of exact price per share and number of shares in existence which depending on the number of shares could easily be a few cents or dollars more or less.

@JonasVollmer Yeah your reasoning is the same as mine, the ranges are left-inclusive

@ChristopherRandles

Do you take such articles at face value that it is exactly $500Bn or do you dig into details of exact price per share and number of shares in existence which depending on the number of shares could easily be a few cents or dollars more or less.

My ability to get a better estimate is very limited, but I'd like to take the most accurate estimate available to use for market resolution. So mostly I'd default to using such an article if that's the best I have, but if we can see that the precise valuation is 499.3Bn, I would use that (unless i am argued into doing otherwise, i could see that leading to bad market dynamics maybe so might be worth living with a worse precision?). If it's like 499.999,999,930Bn because someone forgot to cash in 70 bucks that would still count as 500Bn though (Edit: to avoid confusion this was crossed out since it ended up not being accurate to how I edited the resolution criteria for clarity)

@Bayesian I think if someone forgot to cash their cheque, I don't think it affects the valuation which is price per share * number of shares in existence immediately after deal. Neither of these figures is affected by the cash actually changing hands.

For March 2025 fund raising I was able to find: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/OPAI.PVT/
Valuation 300Bn
Price per share 48.2759
which suggests number of shares in existence immediately after deal was approx 62142808.3

So if we were to find the number of shares in existence after deal was actually 62142808 or 62142800 or 62142000, then the actual valuation would? (could be said to?) be marginally under 300Bn but it is clear that the person who worked out a price of $48.2759 is working it out to make the company valuation as close as possible to $300B.

I don't know if we will find similar or better info for the latest deal.

Perhaps it is better for the market if this sort of rounding does not affect the outcome, i.e. you use the valuation aimed for and any minor rounding from exact number of shares does not affect which bin wins.

That way if the valuation they were aiming for in the calculation of price per share turned out to be $499.6Bn and we found this out then it would resolve to 400-500 bin but if everyone reports it as $500B and we don't get any info suggesting differently then this deal if latest by year end would result in the 500-600 bin.

Does that make sense?

@ChristopherRandles Yeah I am convinced, I would rather rounding not to affect the outcome. If they worked out the valuation of the shares to make the total valuation 500B for their announcement, then 500B is their valuation.

I've updated the description, lmk if you find anything objectionable about it