3 ms·

And thirdly, his boast was that he would solve the bot problem and that would make twitter better. More bots means there's more room for him to improve the com

And thirdly, his boast was that he would solve the bot problem and that would make twitter better. More bots means there's more room for him to improve the company - should be a good thing.

lijogdfljk 4y ago
Disclaimer: Just speculating with your scenario. I know nothing on this subject and my understanding of this deal is that of mild curiosity at best. Fair point. Though i would think bots still affect price, right? Ie lets say it's 100% fake right now, what would the value be? Lets say $0 for easy math. Buying it at $54.20 means he has to at least clean up the bots enough to make it worth, at least, $54 to regain his investment. So while i think your point is interesting, if bot count affects price then i feel one could argue there's a bot threshold whereby he would be over valuing it. In your scenario the sweet spot would be if it was just enough bots to make $54 a fair price, but also lots of bots in total so that he could "fix the problem" and increase value.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Actual bot count is irrelevant. The only thing that matters for revenue purposes would be the results that advertisers are getting by advertising on the platform and what advertisers think of the bot count.
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    No, it is relevant. When the curtain is pulled back and it is revealed that all of the accounts are bots, advertisers will stop spending money with Twitter.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      If the ads are converting all the way through the chain, they don't really have any reason to care whether it's "bots" making those purchases and service sign-ups or not.
      - snovv_crash 4y ago
        That's a big if. Bots don't typically spend money.
bambax 4y ago
Yes! And in addition to that, some people have argued that the more bots the better, because, since Twitter's financials are not in dispute, the value of each actual mDAU is proportional to number of bots. Twitter revenue for 2021 was $5b, for, say, 200m mDAU (actual number is a little over that); each mDAU is therefore worth $20. But if half of these are bots, then each non-bot is worth twice more! If all mDAU are actually bots save one, that one user is worth five billion dollars per year. Musk should be very happy that there are bots. Not only is his defense irrelevant, for the reasons listed above, but it's also incoherent.

And thirdly, his boast was that he would solve the bot problem and that would make twitter better. More bots means there's more room for him to improve the company - should be a good thing.

lijogdfljk 4y ago

Disclaimer: Just speculating with your scenario. I know nothing on this subject and my understanding of this deal is that of mild curiosity at best. Fair point. Though i would think bots still affect price, right? Ie lets say it's 100% fake right now, what would the value be? Lets say $0 for easy math. Buying it at $54.20 means he has to at least clean up the bots enough to make it worth, at least, $54 to regain his investment. So while i think your point is interesting, if bot count affects price then i feel one could argue there's a bot threshold whereby he would be over valuing it. In your scenario the sweet spot would be if it was just enough bots to make $54 a fair price, but also lots of bots in total so that he could "fix the problem" and increase value.

jjeaff 4y ago
Actual bot count is irrelevant. The only thing that matters for revenue purposes would be the results that advertisers are getting by advertising on the platform and what advertisers think of the bot count.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  No, it is relevant. When the curtain is pulled back and it is revealed that all of the accounts are bots, advertisers will stop spending money with Twitter.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    If the ads are converting all the way through the chain, they don't really have any reason to care whether it's "bots" making those purchases and service sign-ups or not.
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      That's a big if. Bots don't typically spend money.

bambax 4y ago

Yes! And in addition to that, some people have argued that the more bots the better, because, since Twitter's financials are not in dispute, the value of each actual mDAU is proportional to number of bots. Twitter revenue for 2021 was $5b, for, say, 200m mDAU (actual number is a little over that); each mDAU is therefore worth $20. But if half of these are bots, then each non-bot is worth twice more! If all mDAU are actually bots save one, that one user is worth five billion dollars per year. Musk should be very happy that there are bots. Not only is his defense irrelevant, for the reasons listed above, but it's also incoherent.