On May 21, 2026, SpaceX, which has long been detached from the public capital markets, finally submitted its S-1 registration statement to the SEC in the United States, initiating the IPO process to list on Nasdaq under the code SPCX. Several figures disclosed in the prospectus swiftly honed in on the contradictions at the heart of this listing: on one hand, the company achieved approximately $4.7 billion in sales revenue in the first quarter of 2026, yet still recorded about $1.9 billion in operational losses; on the other hand, a more critical line states that after the IPO, Musk will control approximately 85.1% of the voting rights through a dual-class share structure, with Class A shares carrying 1 vote each and Class B shares carrying 10 votes each, which means he would have absolute control at the shareholder meeting level. Surrounded by large investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Securities, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Securities, SPCX appears to be a traditional “star tech IPO,” but under the SEC's review perspective, it is first and foremost a sensitive asset that could be deemed a “controlled company,” deeply embedded in aerospace, communications, and AI infrastructure. This article will follow this S-1 to track how regulators delineate the lines between information disclosure, corporate governance, and national security, and what rights and risk boundaries investors actually acquire when accepting Musk's overwhelmingly high control.

SEC Acceptance: SpaceX Submits S-1

On May 21, SpaceX delivered its S-1 to the SEC, which formally is just a routine registration filing, but under the U.S. securities law framework signifies that the company has officially stepped out of the “private black box” into “public scrutiny.” The S-1 is the core registration statement document for companies publicly issuing securities; in order to list on Nasdaq and display the code SPCX, it must first have this document “effective” after SEC review. In this process, the SEC's role is not to price SpaceX but to verify item by item whether disclosures are truthful, complete, and not misleading, especially focusing on whether risk disclosures point out potential pitfalls that investors may encounter, rather than hiding them within valuation narratives. Currently, numerous media outlets regard this issuance as one of the candidates most likely to claim the title of “largest tech IPO of the year” in 2026, and because of the significant scale and high attention, the SEC's grip on information completeness is, in an intangible way, interpreted by the market as a public delineation of the risk boundaries of aerospace and AI infrastructure.

For SpaceX itself, this S-1 is more like a regulatory “coming-of-age ceremony.” Long operating as a private company, it could raise funds and make decisions relatively closed within a limited group of shareholders; now it is forced for the first time to open its complete revenue structure, operational losses, and business risks to public and regulatory scrutiny. Once the S-1 becomes effective, SpaceX not only completes the initial sprint of the IPO but also automatically enters the SEC's routine regulatory track: from then on, it will need to disclose operational and risk information to the SEC quarterly and annually, with important transactions, fundraising, and business shifts also being included in public documents for market and regulatory review. For a project expected to be an annual super tech IPO, the S-1 is not just a “listing prospectus,” but also serves as the first benchmark document for the SEC and the market to jointly set the disclosure standards and risk tolerances for SpaceX’s future.

The Game of Controlled Company Under 85% Voting Rights

The dual-class share structure is one of the most contentious designs in this S-1: SpaceX has set Class A shares at 1 vote each and Class B shares at 10 votes each, with Musk expected to control about 85.1% of the voting rights after the IPO, which is far higher than his economic interest percentage. Legally, this means that at the shareholder meeting level, all matters requiring shareholder votes—such as the election and replacement of directors, executive compensation schemes, mergers, major asset disposals, and even amendments to the company’s bylaws—can almost entirely be dictated by one person, without hostile judicial or regulatory intervention. Even if future financing leads to an increased issuance of Class A shares, as long as the Class B structure is not dismantled, Musk's voting power will be very difficult to dilute, akin to tech companies like Meta and Alphabet, which have enshrined “founders’ unshakeable control” in their registration statements and have also preemptively thrown potential governance disputes to the SEC and investors.

In the context of rules at U.S. exchanges, a company with a single shareholder or group holding more than 50% of the voting rights is typically defined as a “controlled company.” Whether SpaceX ultimately receives this designation will depend on Nasdaq and regulatory agency assessments, but from the perspective of 85.1% voting rights, the structure of substantive control has already formed. Once recognized as a controlled company, SpaceX may gain certain exemptions from stringent requirements related to corporate governance, such as the independence ratio of board members and the establishment of nomination committees, as long as it continuously and prominently discloses this in its prospectus and subsequent annual reports. This structure affects the compliance decisions of different types of funds differently: some institutional investors have internal investment policies targeting dual-class shares or controlled companies that may require them to justify through compliance committees whether “taking on higher governance risks for growth” aligns with their fiduciary duties before establishing positions; index funds, on the other hand, must explain in their composition methods and adjustments why they are including a new sample with highly concentrated governance in their passive tracking portfolios; for retail investors, buying SPCX is closer to a relinquishment of voting rights—supporting Musk's long-term strategic choices for SpaceX with real money while accepting the premise that they have almost no discernible influence in significant decisions.

From Rockets to Computing Power

Once the extreme concentration of voting rights is acknowledged, what truly prompts institutions to reassess pricing models in the S-1 is actually the operational puzzle of SpaceX itself: launch vehicles are the most intuitive cash flow entrance, and launch services bind government and commercial aerospace customers in a long-term contract network; Starlink extends this network into a global satellite internet, forming a sustainable subscription revenue-generating communication infrastructure from ground stations, user terminals to in-orbit constellations. More sensitive is that the S-1 is the first regulatory document to point out the company is expanding towards AI-related infrastructure—specific forms of business and cooperation details currently come chiefly from singular or Class C sources, still pending further verification, but for the market, the composite label of “aerospace + communications + AI infrastructure” has already been established.

It is also due to this additive attribute that SpaceX has been naturally positioned at the intersection of export controls and national security reviews: on one side, rockets and satellite communications are seen as critical aerospace and communication infrastructures; on the other side, advanced computing power and cloud-like capabilities are already subject to multiple regulatory and export control frameworks in the U.S., and now they are concentrated within the same listed company. As the IPO exposes this combination of assets to the public capital market, relevant regulations are no longer merely technical details between industry departments but will substantially shape SpaceX's external service boundaries—such as which regions can access satellite networks, what types of foreign customers can access computing and networking capabilities, and how cross-border data can be segmented between commercial terms and compliance obligations. For the SEC and the exchanges, companies characterized by “hard tech + computing power” increasingly approach valuation logic similar to cloud computing and data center assets; however, accompanying this are far more complex disclosure and compliance coordinate systems than traditional aerospace firms: risk factors must systematically address uncertainties related to export controls, national security, and data compliance, and the capital markets must learn how to price targets that embody both physical and digital infrastructure attributes. This is bound to make SpaceX one of the first empirical samples in observing how the regulatory boundary of “computing power as infrastructure” spills over to the entire AI and broadly defined digital infrastructure sector.

How Wall Street Prices Musk's Power

At the moment the S-1 enshrined “A class 1 vote/share, B class 10 votes/share” and Musk's approximately 85.1% voting rights post-IPO, discussions on valuations in Wall Street shifted from growth curves to the naked question of “control premium/discount.” Actively managed public funds and hedge funds can vote with their feet: if Nasdaq ultimately designates SpaceX as a “controlled company” and triggers governance exemptions on independent board conditions, some institutions’ internal investment policies will automatically take effect—either imposing position limits on such targets or directly listing them on restricted lists, with the only funds remaining capable of significant positions being those willing to pay for the “founder’s absolute control + aerospace/communications/AI infrastructure” narrative. Meanwhile, passive index funds face more mechanical constraints: once mainstream indices include SPCX as a constituent, tracking products for these indices must passively allocate, changing into “long-term buyers without negotiating rights” under the premise of almost complete voting power imbalance, which in turn encourages some institutions that only pursue indices with “governance red lines” to re-evaluate whether to completely exclude such structures.

The true writing of this game into the prospectus and roadshow speeches is done by underwriters such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Securities, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Securities. The widely circulated valuation range of $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion and the fundraising scale of several billion dollars currently only revolve around the exploratory anchor points of “scarce assets + absolute control,” and have not appeared in the main text of the S-1. Investment banks must explain in research reports and risk disclosures: why they can still accept the founder's long-term lock-up of voting rights while referring to the controversies surrounding dual-class share precedents like Meta and Alphabet, and how they will discount the fact that minority shareholders have almost no governance voice during this period of high capital expenditures and an operational loss of approximately $1.9 billion in Q1 2026 (only sourced from a single origin). For retail investors, the protective boundaries that the SEC can provide primarily lie in information disclosure—S-1 and subsequent periodic reports must fully disclose ongoing losses, future financing, and potential dilution risks, and will not impose decisions prohibiting investor participation simply because of “high control + high risk.” Ultimately, how to price Musk's control can only be completed through primary pricing and secondary market transactions, which will also become a new sample for measuring U.S. regulation’s line between “adequate disclosure” and “substantive intervention.”

After Going Public: The Long Tug-of-War Between SpaceX and the SEC

If the S-1 ultimately becomes effective and is上市, SpaceX will not just have an additional code SPCX on Nasdaq, but will have first fully integrated the combination of “founder’s ultra-high control + aerospace communication and other hard technologies + AI infrastructure” into the SEC's routine regulatory framework: on one side, there will be step-by-step obligations for 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K reports, and on the other side, Musk's approximately 85.1% voting rights and potential “controlled company” label post-IPO will compel the SEC and exchanges to provide new trade-offs with heightened security sensitivity between dual-class shares, governance exemptions, and investor protection, compared to past assessments of Meta and Alphabet. Given that SpaceX, with its attributes in aerospace, communications, and AI infrastructure, is highly likely to be viewed as “critical infrastructure,” it means that every future refinancing, merger, or in-depth collaboration with other tech giants may be subject to an additional layer of antitrust or national security review beyond information disclosure, thus creating a long-term situation of tug-of-war among the SEC, exchanges, national security, and investors. For all participants observing tech stocks while keeping an eye on capital flows in the crypto sector, the more significant value of this case lies in valuation methods and risk discounts: how to discount a founder-centric structure, how to internalize the regulation trends of AI, communications, and digital infrastructure into cash flow discount rates and compliance costs, and how to forecast whether the same narrative of “critical infrastructure + national security” will be transferred to crypto-related infrastructure assets, ultimately determines who can survive in the next regulatory repricing rather than passively foot the bill.

Join our community for discussions and to strengthen together!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。