They do want my business, it's an official OpenAI market. The gate isn't "we don't serve you", it's "pay for the model that may target you, but not for defensive purposes". And without a single policy document stating this, it's just a surprise gate in some random verification flow step with no explanation or appeals.
As for why they should they care, maybe they shouldn't. But then they should say which one is it, they can't care and not care at the same time.
OpenAI's own safety argument for Daybreak is that defenders need access to Critical-level models because attackers route around gates. The case for releasing Astra at all stops making sense when the gate does precisely the opposite of that.
OpenAI itself is saying plainly, that "We don’t think it’s practical or appropriate to centrally decide who gets to defend themselves. Instead, we aim to enable as many legitimate defenders as possible, with access grounded in verification, trust signals, and accountability.".
And yes, there are competing models, from China. Except OpenAI wants these models to not be accessible either.
OpenAI can pick one of two:
(a) Critical-level cyber capability is dangerous enough that access must be decided by who you are and what you do, in which case the gate has to actually look at who I am and what I do, say what the criteria are, and let me contest a wrong answer. That's their own stated policy.
(b) Access can be decided by a country code in a random dropdown, with no criteria published, no review, and no one at OpenAI able to say why - in which case drop "democratized access" and "clear, objective criteria" from the marketing, and say plainly that some passport holders don't deserve to have access to defensive capabilities.
They're now marketing a and doing b.