27 ms·

Whether good or bad, the deal was the deal, and the terms of it were fulfilled. I personally am not so fond of Musk suffering from Twitter brain worms (he's nei

Whether good or bad, the deal was the deal, and the terms of it were fulfilled. I personally am not so fond of Musk suffering from Twitter brain worms (he's neither the first nor will be the last to acquire it) but that is separate and apart from the pay issue. Audience capture: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture or perhaps more accurately criticism capture: https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/criticism-capture-is-more-dangerous https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/criticism-capture-is-more-d... is a problem for many people who become media people.

croes 2y ago
Not if the deal was fraudulent. According to the verdict it wasn't a real negotiation. Like politicians when they raise their payment.
TrackerFF 2y ago
Sure, deal is a deal - but from what I understand, the root problem is that the board that agreed on the deal had a bunch of people that were too close to Musk? Say you're the CEO of some corporation XYZ, and you're best buddies with a majority of the board of directors. You then suggest that if you can hit a list of goals, you'll get the option to purchase a huge number of stocks, at a deep, deep discount. You - the CEO - will make a ton of money, while other shareholders will lose money due to dilution. So this begs the question, who must the board of directors look out for. The CEO, or the other shareholders? And if a majority of the board is buddies with the CEO, introducing bias to the picture, should the deal have been voided? If you're some investor that bought XYZ stock years ago, and it 10x'ed since then - a little dilution isn't going to hurt your investment much. If you're a shareholder that bought a stock today, and tomorrow it is worth less due to dilution, and the possibility of the CEO dumping stocks, that's another thing.

croes 2y ago

Not if the deal was fraudulent. According to the verdict it wasn't a real negotiation. Like politicians when they raise their payment.

TrackerFF 2y ago

Sure, deal is a deal - but from what I understand, the root problem is that the board that agreed on the deal had a bunch of people that were too close to Musk? Say you're the CEO of some corporation XYZ, and you're best buddies with a majority of the board of directors. You then suggest that if you can hit a list of goals, you'll get the option to purchase a huge number of stocks, at a deep, deep discount. You - the CEO - will make a ton of money, while other shareholders will lose money due to dilution. So this begs the question, who must the board of directors look out for. The CEO, or the other shareholders? And if a majority of the board is buddies with the CEO, introducing bias to the picture, should the deal have been voided? If you're some investor that bought XYZ stock years ago, and it 10x'ed since then - a little dilution isn't going to hurt your investment much. If you're a shareholder that bought a stock today, and tomorrow it is worth less due to dilution, and the possibility of the CEO dumping stocks, that's another thing.