The first part of the tweet is entirely irrelevant, since whether or not it was true is unknowable. The second statement, on the other hand was a material state

The first part of the tweet is entirely irrelevant, since whether or not it was true is unknowable. The second statement, on the other hand was a material statement of fact. Literally the only thing that matters is whether or not the statement 'Funding secured' was true at the time of the tweet. If it was, then nothing happens (except a strongly worded letter from the SEC on proper disclosure methods). If it wasn't, however, then at the very least he's going to have to pay restitution to all the investors (both long and short) who lost money as a result of the tweet. At worst he's going to prison.