Meanwhile the US government bipartisanly hates Tesla.
You can't just give yourself a pay-raise. Even if you're the largest shareholder, the controlling member of the board of directors, and CEO of a company.
If you accept the public's money, then the _other_ shareholders, even small minority stakes, have a say in the matter.
If you don't like the fact that Delaware looks out for smaller shareholders, you can I guess move out to other states or something. But for the most part, people accept the fact that public companies have rules that go above-and-beyond normal. Wanton acts of corporate corruption aren't tolerated in Delaware.
--------------
The rule in play here is shareholder fiduciary duty. The Board of Directors failed to represent the needs of all of its shareholders like they are legally obligated to do. A large pay-bonus to a CEO who already controls a large stake in Tesla (who'd benefit from Tesla improving anyway) is obviously a bad move. No other CEO in history had such a large share-increase bonus.
In any case, looking out for the little guy is a deeply American value. We understand the problems associated with Tyranny of the Majority. If you want to fully own a company, then stay a private-business (like the Mars family), don't come begging to the public for public money.
you seem to have it backwards:
> Typically, the board chooses one of its members to be the chairman (often now called the "chair" or "chairperson")
Elon Musk, IIRC, was Chairman, Largest Shareholder, and CEO when the deal in question / contract was written.
Elon had a spat with SEC who removed him as chair, but Musk remained largest Shareholders and CEO after that.
A couple years ago a comment like this would be [dead] in less than a couple minutes.
When someone says bullshit about mass manufacturing of cars, its hard to argue because we aren't mechanical engineers.
When someone says bullshit about running a website... guess what? Hacker News is full of programmers, venture capitalists, and website owners. Suddenly Elon Musk is speaking our language and what we see from Twitter is... uggghhhh....
Elon Musk hasn't changed much. All that's really happened is that he moved back into a proper technology discussion in a subject people around here are deeply familiar with. The standard levels of bullshit he spouts are insufficient when the audience here has a much deeper understanding of online advertisements, bots, user engagement, UI issues, and the like.
Designing something like Twitter isn't hard, and it used to be a pretty common design question that could be answered in 30 minutes or less. Instagram certainly doesn't need outside help to help scale stuff, let alone people specifically from Twitter.
This is not what I heard. I heard they hired up tons of prominent ex-Twitter.
>AFAICT, it was a frontend over a pared-down Instagram comment-system.
Do you use it? I do and it does not seem to operate that way. It is a more involved than that.
Yes they did rely on IG's infrastructure to help speed up development but this was a deliberate design choice and I don't blame them: They have this large asset of users and built up infrastructure, might as well use this advantage.
What's your basis on pretending to be the CEO? Considering the unparalleled success of Tesla/SpaceX vs any other competitor?
Both Tesla and SpaceX would be better off with almost anybody else on the planet at the helm.
Ditto SpaceX. If there was a viable competitor to SpaceX in the US it would have emerged in the last 15-20 years.
There are limited amounts of money that investors can offer, even in a country as rich as the USA.
If one lying company lies about their benchmarks, it prevents other companies from forming as one company sucks up the money. While the companies making realistic estimates fail to attract money.
---------
EDIT consider this: we got to the point where investors were spending on MoviePass, GameStop and such companies. Talking about realistic or useful models wasn't really in the works anymore.
That's not the case though. There are large, well funded incumbents that could have taken the approaches Tesla/SpaceX did, and they choose not to.
Their competition also hasn't been bought out. Both companies have made IP, tech, logistics, etc acquisitions, but iirc those have all been compliments, not competitors.
Edit - They've also sold parts of their acquisitions they didn't want, like selling Maxwell while keeping the DBE stuff.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/07/30/tesla-sells-maxwell-t...
SpaceX just lied about building the "Artemis" project and getting to the moon by....*checks notes*... 2025.
The problem is overpromising and underdelivering. There's no full-self-driving, there's no Artemis by 2025, etc. etc. Such lofty, unlikely goals not only attract money (government money, investor money, etc. etc.), they also suck out the oxygen for more legitimate technologies.
Everyone in the Industry knows no ones getting to the moon before 2028.
No other lander was suitable. You can see the modifications Blue Origin made post lobbying. And Dynetics.... If you truly believe that counted your entire comment is null and void
SpaceX would still be ahead. Artemis or not. You can go to Southern Florida and see for yourself
Market cap is one of the better ways to objectively classify companies, and Tesla has been continously doing extremely well. It has for years. Maybe you are smarter than the entire market.
> Both Tesla and SpaceX would be better off with almost anybody else on the planet at the helm.
Must be why all those other space companies not lead by Elon Musk are doing a lot better. Oh wait...