261–270 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment implies that there was a time when he was actually trying to buy the "house" in good faith. I'm not convinced that is true... It gave him a great excuse to liquidate Tesla stock without the market responding as strongly as it normally would when a CEO unloads billions of dollars of shares in a company
I think it is actually worse than that, I think he was buying it in good faith. He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone. I know, if I buy 44bn worth then at this rate I will make many many billions ... Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancell…
My personal theory, which more or less matches Matt Levine's theory from his Bloomberg opinion column...
Musk wanted special features on his Twitter account. He made a stink on Twitter about it, hoping to get more features as one of its most popular users. When that wasn't working, he tried to join the Board of Directors to lean heavily onto the CEO to grant special features on his Twitter account.
Upon realizing that the board position doesn't come with those kinds of benefits, Musk quit the board, bought 9% of Twitter, and tried to push these "special features on my account" proposal that way. Board still didn't budge.
Elon Musk, realizing he has to buy the company to actually get what he wants, starts to buy the company. Then the stock price collapses and its turning out to be a horrible loss. So Musk then starts to throw another tantrum to get out of this one.
------------
The benefits of this theory, is that this "story" proposed by Matt Levine makes every single decision of Elon Musk reasonable (albeit sociopathic, but reasonable and self-serving). From his tantrum in early March 2022 on Twitter, to his 9% buyout, to his flirting as a board member (and then quitting), to the eventual buyout.
It also doesn't require "4d chess thinking genius". Each decision, while reasonable, isn't really that advanced or difficult to follow individually.
Elon Musk just want special treatment on Twitter. I don't know what that "special treatment" is (maybe a bigger, bluer checkmark. Maybe guarantees on the global Twitter Timeline. Etc. etc. Something along those lines...), but special nonetheless.
And as a billionaire, Musk has a number of strategies at his disposal that you or I wouldn't have. Musk is willing to pursue those strategies because he's so rich, and its really not a big deal to his finances.
--------
It just fits so neatly to what has happened, that its the most reasonable proposal of his behavior for the past 6 months so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can be popular due to Twitter and people can also not be deranged morons. Twitter is very popular with a few niche groups: Journalists and people in tech for example. The former is influenced by Elon's antics on Twitter and end up writing news stories or making documentaries [1] about him. People learn about Musk through these respectable publications. The latter group spreads the gospel of Elon's TED talks and pr…
The emerald mine stuff is super overblown and only matters to people who don't like Musk for other reasons. If owning some natural resource like a mine or two was all it took to become a trailblazing entrepreneur who played a key role in Paypal/Tesla/SpaceX then Musk wouldn't be as popular as he is with many because there would be so many more like him around. Musk is clearly an extraordinary individual even if he so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Twitter is going to use the threat of specific performance to try and extract a damages settlement greater than the contractual $1B from Musk. Yeah that's what makes the most sense. Musk doesn't want to buy Twitter anymore, forcing him to buy it is not a very good solution. It's possible to do, and certainly enforceable, but not a desirable outcome for anyone. But, having him pay $10 or even $15 billions as…
Presumably if the fine is bigger then the delta between the current share price and what Musk offered, he'd be better off buying the company and then trying to turn around and sell it then paying the fine. Similarly, if the fine is smaller, Twitter share-holders would be better off just forcing him to buy and forgoing the fine. So a settlement number seems kinda hard to agree on, unless they have differing opinions o…
A fine close to the spread, but still a bit lower, accounts for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can be popular due to Twitter and people can also not be deranged morons. Twitter is very popular with a few niche groups: Journalists and people in tech for example. The former is influenced by Elon's antics on Twitter and end up writing news stories or making documentaries [1] about him. People learn about Musk through these respectable publications. The latter group spreads the gospel of Elon's TED talks and pr…
The emerald mine stuff is super overblown and only matters to people who don't like Musk for other reasons. If owning some natural resource like a mine or two was all it took to become a trailblazing entrepreneur who played a key role in Paypal/Tesla/SpaceX then Musk wouldn't be as popular as he is with many because there would be so many more like him around. Musk is clearly an extraordinary individual even if he so…
I don't have an opinion on how big being born wealthy plays in his success. Just curious though -- how many profitable mines do you think are in operation and how many people do you think own them as a percentage of total global population?
It is possible that this means Musk's spam analysis tool is defective. But, there is another logical possibility...
I have 30 Twitter accounts, but only one is used. It's only used to be able to occasionally search for news on Twitter. I wonder if those other 29 accounts are actually removed from the active accounts count when trying to sell their numbers.
I think Musk's counterclaims are more interesting than Twitter's response. Here's the summary of the five counterclaims: * Twitter committed fraud by lying to the SEC about the mDAU numbers with the intent of inducing Musk to buy Twitter at an inflated price. No, really, this is the allegation (see paragraphs 202-206). * Count 2 is that Twitter committed [Texas fraud statute] by lying when it offered its shares. It's…
Wouldn’t the first count apply to anyone interested in buying shares in Twitter? Artificially inflating the mDAU figure makes the investment appear more attractive and valuable than it really is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If his popularity is due to what he posts on twitter it would appear that a large proportion of the human race are deranged morons.
He can be popular due to Twitter and people can also not be deranged morons. Twitter is very popular with a few niche groups: Journalists and people in tech for example. The former is influenced by Elon's antics on Twitter and end up writing news stories or making documentaries [1] about him. People learn about Musk through these respectable publications. The latter group spreads the gospel of Elon's TED talks and pr…
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211054942192119808?s=21...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep trying to explain to you why you're wrong and you keep on ignoring them and persisting with your original false statement. The 5% number claimed by Twitter is not the percentage of all accounts that are bots . That has never been the claim. Twitter separates its accounts into "mDAU"s and "other", and they are claiming 5% of the mDAUs are bots. You cannot falsify this claim with "bot experiences on Twitter…
I'm not talking about all bots. I'm talking about mDAU bots. You guys are trying to argue against a point I'm not making. 3rd party estimations range from 10-20% for mDAU bots, Twitter's is 5%. Others were defending it by saying "well the number doesn't have to be accurate legally" or "well Musk should have known it's not really accurate". My counter is that weasel legal wording and logic doesn't give much confidence…
Could you provide some sources for these estimates? In particular, I'm curious about the methodology and data sources those third-party sources use.