SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
421–430 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#422Guess I'll be looking for a replacement for Cursor now... Anyone have recommendations? I like the plan/agent mode and the fact that it's an IDE, so I can use it in the traditional way as well as by yapping with a bunch of agents. Also the Cursor rules I've curated and they do their job well.
Consider Nimbalyst, its a free visual workspace for Claude Code and Codex that has visual editing of markdown, mockups, diagrams, code with your agents with WYSYWIG diffs as well as task management and kanban session management tied into your agents. Its got a files/plan/editing mode and an agent/sessions mode.
Thanks!
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#423Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#424Wow, we are seeing the dark underbelly of the beast here. Nobody talks about cursor anymore for a reason. Look, I'm not saying it's not useful and discounting anyone getting value out of it... But it's clearly not worth 60B dollars in April 2026.
A crazy and lucky bailout for Cursor + investors.
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot to consider whether all this is worth $60B.
> forgot to consider whether all this is worth $60B I see two possibilities: (1) SpaceX is paying with stock; and (2) the $60bn pay-out is (a) conditional or (b) never going to be exercised—it was a stalking horse for negotiating the $10bn terms, which gives SpaceX everything it actually wants.
Also one would definitely offer to pay in stock if they believe it is massively over-valued lmao.
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla is profitable, as a matter of public record. And SpaceX is, by all accounts, extremely profitable.
SpaceX is _not_ profitable by most reasonable measurements of accounting. If you discount rocket depreciation costs and R&D, then yeah its profitable from starlink revenue.
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
If underwriters think it’s worth $1.7T with a $16B revenue (not profit), they’re doing the same thing as the credit agencies did in 2008 by giving underwater mortgage backed securities a AAA rating.
It's not the same at all. Do you know how an IPO roadshow works at all or are you just spouting bullshit?
Again, not debating that SpaceX isn’t a legit company or that it’s profitable. But underwriters agreeing with high valuations to stocks that collapse once they go public isn’t unheard of.
Edit: and I will concede that I should’ve phrased my initial thoughts better. Credit rating agencies and underwriters do very separate things, just like IPOs and MBS are two very separate things.
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#428Cursor's statement on the deal (which does not mention the option at all): https://cursor.com/blog/spacex-model-training
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#429I guess the hope is that combining two sub-par coding models (xAI's grok + cursor's composer) and combining the data they have access to, they can build something that can compete with OpenAI / Anthropic in the coding space... I guess I kinda see it... it makes sense from both points of view (xAI needs data + places to run their models, cursor needs to not be reliant on Anthropic/OpenAI). I think I don't see it worki…
Re: SpaceX says it has agreement to acquire Cursor for $60B
#430I just want to make the observation that this whole SpaceX IPO is turning out entirely unlike the CDOs that led to the 2008 financial crisis. There's no mixing of AAA level assets with a bunch of subprime stuff and then getting someone to buy it all as AAA. Not at all similar. Completely different. Will turn out just fine this time.
The assets weren’t AAA, you’re mixing it up a bond concepts. The deal had bonds that were AAA. And if you’re talking about CDOs then the assets were bonds which were usually BBB or similarly cuspy bonds. You should learn about securitizations. It’s actually interesting. But people talk about it colloquially and so incorrectly that it’s mind dumbing. Here’s a simplified example of how you can take something and turn i…