That doesn't strike me as being any better; in fact, it reeks of conflict-of-interest. Software consulting AFAIK is not one of Tesla's normal business vertical

That doesn't strike me as being any better; in fact, it reeks of conflict-of-interest. Software consulting AFAIK is not one of Tesla's normal business verticals. The stockholders deserve an explanation for the following questions, at a minimum: 1. Why is engaging in said consulting the highest-and-best use of Tesla's resources, from a profit maximization perspective? The fact that there's a precedent set with SpaceX isn't a justification, since SpaceX is another toy in Musk's toy chest, so the conflict of interest remains. 2. What rate is Twitter / SpaceX paying Tesla for said services? Are those friend-prices or market-prices? If the rate is either too high or too low, Musk could be accused of self-dealing. 3. What kind of bidding process did Twitter put out on these consulting services before settling on Tesla? If I'm one of the investors funding this Twitter purchase, I'd want to know. I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC wants to know, as well. How do Twitter investors know that they're getting the best bang for their consulting buck with engineers whose industry focus so far has been automobile-specific? 4. Lastly, what work would these engineers otherwise be doing at Tesla, and what happens to the product roadmap of those teams now that they're working with fewer resources? Musk is already notorious for promising new features are just around the corner, and failing to deliver. Missing a launch date because supply chain issues is one thing; missing it because the CEO yanked key engineers off the team to go QA his new hobby horse is something else. Such a date miss could have financial implications for Tesla, which would negatively impact Tesla investors.