4 ms·

You don’t understand the Musk business model. It has been the same for years. His wealth doesn’t come from his products, but from his fanbase buying his stock.

by kubb 2y ago

You don’t understand the Musk business model. It has been the same for years. His wealth doesn’t come from his products, but from his fanbase buying his stock. The purpose of everything he does is to influence the public opinion to make him the tech genius of today in the collective psyche. Of course, he needs to do impressive things, stuff that a normal person wouldn’t have the resources to achieve. It’s similar to Mr. Beast’s channel on YouTube, just on a way bigger scale. Do things that people can’t see anywhere else. Musk’s money will come from his fans. And ETFs, trust funds and such will amplify this when he reaches a certain market cap. His crypto coins are the exact same scheme. Once you stop thinking in classic business school terms, it starts making way more sense. Some of his ventures actually produce value! But that’s not where the money comes from. It comes from the belief, the adoration and the celebrity status that he has. This is the real power in today’s world. People need to know you from the screen. This clout catapulted him to the government of the US, made him the most wealthy man in the world and given him the license to do anything he wants publicly without repercussions.

rvnx 2y ago
There is an exception: Tesla FSD (the US version, not the horrible EU version) this is rather cool and impressive, and unbeaten in the market for now. Though free and open-source solutions are not that bad like https://github.com/ApolloAuto/apollo https://github.com/ApolloAuto/apollo But the build quality of a Tesla car itself, omg. It feels like a carton box with an amazing battery.
- kubb 2y ago
  See my other comment. Some of his ventures do produce value. That’s not where the money comes from.
l33tc0de 2y ago
[flagged]
boxed 2y ago
> His profits don’t come from his products, but from his fanbase buying his stock. SpaceX is private, Starlink makes real money from real users. > Everything he does is done to influence the public opinion to make him the tech genius of today in the collective psyche. Well that's clearly not right. He's doing a lot of things to make himself seem like a total tool that we should all boycott no matter how good the products are. If he actually did what you say, he wouldn't be burning all these bridges.
- kubb 2y ago
  The bulk of his wealth is the Tesla stock. I know that SpaceX produces value. Some of his ventures do. But the image of a genius entrepreneur is way more valuable than any government contract he might get. Remember he was way less crazy before his market cap skyrocketed. Now he can afford being polarizing as a PR strategy once his fanbase has reached a certain critical mass. He’s been constantly testing what works.
  - sebzim4500 2y ago
    He'd still be one of the richest people in the world just based on his stake in SpaceX (IIRC valued over $100B)
    - melodyogonna 2y ago
      He would be one of the richest people in the world even if he didn't start both SpaceX and Tesla, just from what he made from the sale of Paypal. Hell, he'll be one of the richest people in the world even if he didn't start the original X and just lived off the $13m he made from Zip2. $13m still places you in the top 0.5% in the world today.
- XorNot 2y ago
  SpaceX is not where most of his valuation comes from: it principally comes from Tesla stock, which is vastly, hilariously overvalued compared to it's performance as a car company, and definitely compared to it's performance as a technology company. Even more importantly, analysis of Elon's tweeting patterns versus Tesla stock valuation makes the why Twitter became so central to him obvious[1] - it was a massive driver of Tesla stock value. Buying it was a good move from the perspective that he really couldn't afford to be banned from Twitter. [1] https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijdsa.20210701.14 https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ij...
beezlewax 2y ago
I'm interested in what you're saying about classical business terms. Can you elaborate on that a little? I've always found these kinds of people hard to understand. The man has almost unlimited wealth and his motivations seem consistently petty and strange or just downright ludicrous. He's like an alien to me. I've noted the same feeling when seeing VCs/business people speak when I've encountered them.
- kubb 2y ago
  The classic business is about producing valuable economic outputs and creating a stable revenue flow from bringing them to market. The modern era post-business is about dipping into everyone’s pockets, by securing cash flow from the stock market and the government. Here building a profitable business model is less important than convincing people and the government to give you that dough. And the best way to do it is to have clout.
- FergusArgyll 2y ago
  > his motivations seem consistently petty and strange or just downright ludicrous. He's like an alien to me. I think it could help to try to think of a historical figure that has done impressive things but which you don't have an overly negative view of. A lot of them seem really weird or alien. In democracies, political leaders are (sometimes!) more "normal" because they have to get elected. So think of a CEO/Founder you like (Jobs?) or earlier people (Napoleon? I dunno, pick yours) Read a bio on them, they're pretty strange (I like Churchill, dude was wild). It seems that to do extraordinary things you need some traits that make you ludicrous. I don't really know, but it's definitely a pattern
superflow 2y ago
this is 100% false..
- rs186 2y ago
  How so? Care to provide any meaningful information to support that?
kandesbunzler 2y ago
[flagged]
- cbg0 2y ago
  Refrain from personal attacks and try to come up with some arguments if you disagree.
slig 2y ago
>his fanbase buying his stock That doesn't make sense as most (66%) of the stock is owned by institutions. [1] [1]: https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/TSLA/institutional-ownership https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/TSLA/institutional-...
- kubb 2y ago
  Institutions are organized people. They aren’t more immune to the information firehose than me or you.
- rs186 2y ago
  That's pretty normal for a company like this. Also, let's be honest, based on historic data, it has been a good investment.
- staticman2 2y ago
  Only people engaged in active buying and selling set the price of Tesla stock. It's called "price discovery." Any institution such as an index fund passively holding stock does not effect the value of the stock, so the percentage of institutional ownership doesn't itself matter.

by kubb 2y ago

rvnx 2y ago

There is an exception: Tesla FSD (the US version, not the horrible EU version) this is rather cool and impressive, and unbeaten in the market for now. Though free and open-source solutions are not that bad like https://github.com/ApolloAuto/apollo https://github.com/ApolloAuto/apollo But the build quality of a Tesla car itself, omg. It feels like a carton box with an amazing battery.

kubb 2y ago
See my other comment. Some of his ventures do produce value. That’s not where the money comes from.

l33tc0de 2y ago

[flagged]

boxed 2y ago

> His profits don’t come from his products, but from his fanbase buying his stock. SpaceX is private, Starlink makes real money from real users. > Everything he does is done to influence the public opinion to make him the tech genius of today in the collective psyche. Well that's clearly not right. He's doing a lot of things to make himself seem like a total tool that we should all boycott no matter how good the products are. If he actually did what you say, he wouldn't be burning all these bridges.

kubb 2y ago
The bulk of his wealth is the Tesla stock. I know that SpaceX produces value. Some of his ventures do. But the image of a genius entrepreneur is way more valuable than any government contract he might get. Remember he was way less crazy before his market cap skyrocketed. Now he can afford being polarizing as a PR strategy once his fanbase has reached a certain critical mass. He’s been constantly testing what works.
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  He'd still be one of the richest people in the world just based on his stake in SpaceX (IIRC valued over $100B)
  - melodyogonna 2y ago
    He would be one of the richest people in the world even if he didn't start both SpaceX and Tesla, just from what he made from the sale of Paypal. Hell, he'll be one of the richest people in the world even if he didn't start the original X and just lived off the $13m he made from Zip2. $13m still places you in the top 0.5% in the world today.
XorNot 2y ago
SpaceX is not where most of his valuation comes from: it principally comes from Tesla stock, which is vastly, hilariously overvalued compared to it's performance as a car company, and definitely compared to it's performance as a technology company. Even more importantly, analysis of Elon's tweeting patterns versus Tesla stock valuation makes the why Twitter became so central to him obvious[1] - it was a massive driver of Tesla stock value. Buying it was a good move from the perspective that he really couldn't afford to be banned from Twitter. [1] https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijdsa.20210701.14 https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ij...

beezlewax 2y ago

I'm interested in what you're saying about classical business terms. Can you elaborate on that a little? I've always found these kinds of people hard to understand. The man has almost unlimited wealth and his motivations seem consistently petty and strange or just downright ludicrous. He's like an alien to me. I've noted the same feeling when seeing VCs/business people speak when I've encountered them.

kubb 2y ago
The classic business is about producing valuable economic outputs and creating a stable revenue flow from bringing them to market. The modern era post-business is about dipping into everyone’s pockets, by securing cash flow from the stock market and the government. Here building a profitable business model is less important than convincing people and the government to give you that dough. And the best way to do it is to have clout.
FergusArgyll 2y ago
> his motivations seem consistently petty and strange or just downright ludicrous. He's like an alien to me. I think it could help to try to think of a historical figure that has done impressive things but which you don't have an overly negative view of. A lot of them seem really weird or alien. In democracies, political leaders are (sometimes!) more "normal" because they have to get elected. So think of a CEO/Founder you like (Jobs?) or earlier people (Napoleon? I dunno, pick yours) Read a bio on them, they're pretty strange (I like Churchill, dude was wild). It seems that to do extraordinary things you need some traits that make you ludicrous. I don't really know, but it's definitely a pattern

superflow 2y ago

this is 100% false..

rs186 2y ago
How so? Care to provide any meaningful information to support that?

kandesbunzler 2y ago

[flagged]

cbg0 2y ago
Refrain from personal attacks and try to come up with some arguments if you disagree.

slig 2y ago

>his fanbase buying his stock That doesn't make sense as most (66%) of the stock is owned by institutions. [1] [1]: https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/TSLA/institutional-ownership https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/TSLA/institutional-...

kubb 2y ago
Institutions are organized people. They aren’t more immune to the information firehose than me or you.
rs186 2y ago
That's pretty normal for a company like this. Also, let's be honest, based on historic data, it has been a good investment.
staticman2 2y ago
Only people engaged in active buying and selling set the price of Tesla stock. It's called "price discovery." Any institution such as an index fund passively holding stock does not effect the value of the stock, so the percentage of institutional ownership doesn't itself matter.