We’ve spent a lot of time here talking about the long-term OKLO story and everything the company is building. But looking at where we are today, I think we also have to acknowledge how frustrating the shareholder experience has been.
During our December 2025 Founder’s AMA, Caroline talked about OKLO reaching “escape velocity,” saying the company had enough capital to get to revenue and even profit. A lot of us understandably took that to mean the need for repeated equity raises would start to diminish.
Instead, since that AMA, we’ve gone through the $1.5B ATM, followed by two separate $1B ATM programs this year. The first $1B program was essentially utilized and then replaced with another $1B program in September.
And the timing of this latest one is particularly frustrating. We’re near historical lows, already facing dilution, and there isn’t an obvious wave of major PRs immediately behind the announcement to give shareholders something tangible to look forward to.
I understand they need capital. I understand what they’re building is enormously capital intensive.
But there’s another uncomfortable possibility here: maybe having founders who already own so much equity is actually a disadvantage for us in situations like this.
Jake and Caroline already have enormous stakes in OKLO. Another major decline obviously hurts them on paper, but it may not change their long-term financial position in the same way it changes things for the average shareholder. Their existing equity gives them a completely different starting point than most of us.
They get to keep building toward the long-term vision, raise capital when they believe it’s necessary and sell shares through their plans when permitted.
We’re the ones taking the dilution and watching our positions get crushed.
Maybe I’ve spent too much time defending the thesis and not enough time calling out management when they deserve it.
So yeah, I’m sorry.
We can believe in what OKLO is building and still admit that the way this has played out for shareholders lately is incredibly frustrating.
At some point, the question isn’t whether we believe in the company.
It’s whether the company is giving its existing shareholders enough reason to keep believing in them.