In a series of posts on X Monday night, Musk said that he would not want to grow Tesla to become a leader in artificial intelligence and robotics without a compensation plan that would give him ownership of around 25% of the company’s stock. That would be about double the roughly 13% stake he currently owns.

Just casually asking for a roughly 80 Billion dollar pay raise. But at this point would Tesla be better off without him?

  • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Just like Amazon who is a cloud computing company with a side hustle in e-tail or Google which is an ad company with a side hustle in tech.

    In general most people don’t really understand this about big companies.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah but in their cases the “hustle” got them the funds to move into their current space. Musk just had so much money that Tesla outlasted all the red it was in. Same thing going on with Twitter.

      We all know it’ll never fully go under, he has too much money for it too. It’ll last long enough to sooner or later come back up.

      • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        We all know it’ll never fully go under

        No, it likely won’t, and part of that is also because of who’s invested in the company’s success. Just another example of “too big to fail”.

      • Hypx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That depends on how bullshit the numbers really are. If it is just Jack Welch level of financial shenanigans, you can see a stump version of the company eventually surviving. If it is worse than that, then probably not.