4 ms·

> Thanks to the growing profile of xAI and Musk’s newfound political influence, X’s business appears to be turning around. The company reportedly just obtained

by Oras 2y ago

> Thanks to the growing profile of xAI and Musk’s newfound political influence, X’s business appears to be turning around. The company reportedly just obtained a $44 billion valuation from investors — the same price Musk paid for Twitter in 2022. What? I don’t get it. So almost 3 years and “growing profile” to reach the same valuation? What was the growth for?

flanked-evergl 2y ago
Musk severely overpaid for X. The valuation is not the same as the price someone paid for it or would pay for it. Someone could today buy it at twice the valuation, it would be dumb, but they could. Musk actually wanted to terminate the sale, but the twitter board chair pursued legal action to force the sale[1] at the $44 billion discussed here. If Bret Taylor did not force Musk to pay that severely inflated price, Donald Trump would likely not be president today. Not all heros wear capes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Attempted_withdrawal_by_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon...
- yyyk 2y ago
  You're assuming it was a business transaction. Of course not. Musk never intended to make a direct profit. As a political transaction, if anything, Musk paid very little for what he got.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Musk never intended to make a direct profit Musk didn't intend to buy Twitter. That's incredibly clear from his statements in and out of court in the months leading up to the purchase. (Also, the fact that he had to be dragged into court.) Musk being Musk, however, once he was forced to, made lemonade from lemons.
    - ohgr 2y ago
      I believe that’s sewage from shit in this case.
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    He overpaid that much so he could publicly humiliate and bully and lie about his own trans daughter who he hates so much in public to his hundreds of millions of followers without getting banned, so it was worth it to him. Financing stochastic terrorism ain't cheap, and a lot of innocent people get caught up in the crossfire of his personal family feuds against the "woke mind virus". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism >Stochastic terrorism is a form of political violence instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished with indirect, vague or coded language, which grants the instigator plausible deniability for any associated violence. A key element of stochastic terrorism is the use of media for propagation, where the person carrying out the violence may not have direct connection to any other users of violent rhetoric. MSNBC guest accuses Musk and Libs of TikTok of promoting 'stochastic terrorism' on Twitter. Kristofer Goldsmith claimed Elon Musk is deliberately trying to turn Twitter into a 'raging cesspool': https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-guest-musk-libs-tiktok-promoting-stochastic-terrorism-twitter https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-guest-musk-libs-tiktok-p... >An MSNBC guest accused Elon Musk of promoting "stochastic terrorists" like Libs of TikTok to cultivate an "extreme far-right audience" on Twitter Monday. >During a segment on "Deadline: White House" focused on the emergence of extremist groups in the U.S., host Nicole Wallace asked self-declared fascism-fighter Kristofer Goldsmith to discuss how Musk's purchase of Twitter has contributed to the issue. >"Elon Musk is very deliberately cultivating an extreme far-right audience, and very specifically an anti-trans audience," Goldsmith, who serves as CEO of Veterans Fighting Fascism, responded. >Goldsmith claimed that Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers created a "trans panic" online by using "slurs to try to dehumanize trans-Americans and trans individuals abroad and say that they're predatory toward children." He also blamed them for causing alleged threats against "drag events." >Both accounts repost others' social media content to expose members of the LGBTQ+ community and others who espouse radical views to children. >"What they’re doing is they’re taking this like QAnon myth, their Pizzagate pedophile conspiracy theory…and they’re mainstreaming it. All through what has become one of the most, whether we like it or not, important social media platforms in existence," Goldsmith said. >According to his website, Goldsmith, who has made frequent appearances on MSNBC, describes himself an "investigator and consultant who takes an unconventional approach to fighting against domestic fascist organizations and unlawful militias." >Goldsmith told Wallace that he believes Musk is intentionally destroying Twitter and turning it "into a raging cesspool because Elon thinks he has something to gain from the chaos." >"That is why he is promoting not just stochastic terrorism on his own, but he’s interacting with stochastic terrorists like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers and all of these other far-right activists who single out the trans community and the broader LGBTQ+ community with acts of violence and threats of violence," he alleged. >Libs of TikTok, which boasts over 1.4 million followers on Twitter, was suspended six times prior to Musk's takeover for allegedly violating the platform's "hateful conduct" policy. The second installment of the "Twitter Files," revealed last week that Twitter internally acknowledged that the account had "not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy" but still proceeded with the suspensions anyway. >The account publicly thanked Musk for giving her a sense of "vindication" by publicizing Twitter's internal communications. >"They suspended me multiple times knowing I never violated any policies. This is what happens when you talk about things that they don’t want you to talk about," she wrote on Twitter. "So glad those days on Twitter are over. Thanks @elonmusk." >Musk responded to her post, promising to make Twitter "much better" under his leadership. >"You’re welcome. Twitter won’t be perfect in the future," he tweeted, "but it will be much better."
  - Macha 2y ago
    > You're assuming it was a business transaction. Of course not. Musk never intended to make a direct profit. > As a political transaction, if anything, Musk paid very little for what he got. I think the fact that he tried to get out of it, indicates that this wasn't a long term plan, though he did eventually make political use out of it.
    - cma 2y ago
      And if they let him out of it he could have always immediately made another cheaper offer.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - ergocoder 2y ago
      He tried to get out because the market crashed. FB went down like 3x. I don’t think there is anything more than that. There was no harm in trying to get out and potentially buying it at a half price. He tried and failed.
    - root_axis 2y ago
      I think he bargained on getting a lower price, but it was definitely a political decision, it's only that the horse he was originally betting on was DeSantis. After that fell through he eventually found his way to Trump.
- davidham 2y ago
  Are you sure? He used it to help get Donald Trump elected, and now Musk has an unassailable position in government and tremendous power to steer government spending to his businesses, and to cripple the agencies that regulate them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    Unassailable? Musk is a lightning rod. Surely he must realize that after he has served his purpose, he will be cast aside and likely end up imprisoned if not worse, right? Have people paid no attention to what happens to almost everyone in Trump's orbit? In Musk's case it will be hugely politically valuable to use him as a sponge for anger, pretend that he was free-ranging, and cast him aside. Therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. We've seen this pattern with Trump time and time again, and it's amazing that Musk seems so completely delusional about this guaranteed outcome.
    - davidham 2y ago
      Musk is different from the other people in Trump’s orbit. Trump can’t afford to throw Musk aside or turn him into an enemy. Not yet anyway. This is not to say that there won’t be a breakup, there may yet be. But it seems like Musk was able to parlay his Twitter investment into tremendous direct influence over the government, a pearl without price. I don’t know that he ever cared whether Twitter made money or not.
      - llm_nerd 2y ago
        Trump and the MAGA cult is far bigger than Musk. Musk was against Trump, and actually backed DeSantis. Did not matter at all. If Trump turned his cult against Musk, Musk would be done. Immediately all of the bootlickers and retweeters would deride everything Musk has said or done. Musk's money would be meaningless, and he'd be the next "Soros" in their minds. Musk clearly cares incredibly about whether Twitter makes money, and has been desperately flailing around to try to make it viable. They're currently suing advertisers who don't advertise there, which is farcical. Musk really believed his grand "we'll be your bank!" thing would be some simple thing (because everything is super easy to do for someone who doesn't actually understand or do any of it)
- b112 2y ago
  He over-offered in hindsight. At the time however, no, as mega-low interest rate money was still a thing, and companies such as Twitter had significantly higher valuation as a result. This is why he wanted to backout. The metrics had changed, by no fault of Twitter or him.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    > This is why he wanted to backout. I think people completely forgot about this part: After the initial offer he tried to back out of it, saying Twitter wasn't actually worth that much. Twitter sued Musk to force the deal through, and it was finalized after months in court.
ljm 2y ago
I wonder how many of those investors have skin in the game and are sycophantically trying to avoid Musk leaving them holding the bag.
timmg 2y ago
> What? I don’t get it. So almost 3 years and “growing profile” to reach the same valuation? What was the growth for? In fairness, that was a frothy time for stocks. Twitter stock price was at an unsustainable price (IMHO) when he bought it.
- cma 2y ago
  Compare market cap of others in their segment: Meta has grown a lot since then, Snap not so much.
  - ergocoder 2y ago
    To be fair, twitter hasn’t really competed or been comparable to Meta for a while. Not saying that they aren’t competitors, but it is more like they have been out-executed by Meta even before Musk’s acquisition. Way before. To be more fair, any company being compared to FB would mostly look worse.
    - cma 2y ago
      Nvidia in same timeframe far outgrew Meta, maybe no other major ones, except maybe netflix recovering from an even earlier drop. A good portion of Meta's gain was just getting back to where they were before the Apple store changes induced drop (that also hit Twitter).
llm_nerd 2y ago
It's worth noting that the widely reported "$44 billion valuation from investors" was Elon Musk himself making someone who co-invested in the original buyout whole again. e.g. Elon Musk is the one who set the valuation. All of these numbers are fantasy. Similarly Musk has been giving lenders stakes in "xAI" as well to compensate for the eventual failure of their loans, and again that is being reported as X debt losing its discount. Everything in US equities is absolute farce, especially anything that involves Elon Musk. It's all fantasy numbers.
- rvz 2y ago
  > Everything in US equities is absolute farce, especially anything that involves Elon Musk. It's all fantasy numbers. Exactly. Then you would also agree that the entire startup industry, especially these AI startups are beyond overvalued. What matters is when it all crashes down to reality.
rchaud 2y ago
Yeah and weWork got a "$50 billion" valuation from its bagholders. Then they released their actual books for the S-1, and well long story short, they're circling the toilet as a publicly traded company.
Zigurd 2y ago
Evidently, that $44 billion valuation didn't stick long enough for the most recent investment round, in which Elon and some tiny investor group I've never heard of and isn't an actual VC invested $1 billion at a $32 billion valuation. Considering that was probably all Elon's money, he could've priced the round any way he wanted.

by Oras 2y ago

flanked-evergl 2y ago

Musk severely overpaid for X. The valuation is not the same as the price someone paid for it or would pay for it. Someone could today buy it at twice the valuation, it would be dumb, but they could. Musk actually wanted to terminate the sale, but the twitter board chair pursued legal action to force the sale[1] at the $44 billion discussed here. If Bret Taylor did not force Musk to pay that severely inflated price, Donald Trump would likely not be president today. Not all heros wear capes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Attempted_withdrawal_by_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon...

yyyk 2y ago
You're assuming it was a business transaction. Of course not. Musk never intended to make a direct profit. As a political transaction, if anything, Musk paid very little for what he got.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Musk never intended to make a direct profit Musk didn't intend to buy Twitter. That's incredibly clear from his statements in and out of court in the months leading up to the purchase. (Also, the fact that he had to be dragged into court.) Musk being Musk, however, once he was forced to, made lemonade from lemons.
  - ohgr 2y ago
    I believe that’s sewage from shit in this case.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  He overpaid that much so he could publicly humiliate and bully and lie about his own trans daughter who he hates so much in public to his hundreds of millions of followers without getting banned, so it was worth it to him. Financing stochastic terrorism ain't cheap, and a lot of innocent people get caught up in the crossfire of his personal family feuds against the "woke mind virus". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism >Stochastic terrorism is a form of political violence instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished with indirect, vague or coded language, which grants the instigator plausible deniability for any associated violence. A key element of stochastic terrorism is the use of media for propagation, where the person carrying out the violence may not have direct connection to any other users of violent rhetoric. MSNBC guest accuses Musk and Libs of TikTok of promoting 'stochastic terrorism' on Twitter. Kristofer Goldsmith claimed Elon Musk is deliberately trying to turn Twitter into a 'raging cesspool': https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-guest-musk-libs-tiktok-promoting-stochastic-terrorism-twitter https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-guest-musk-libs-tiktok-p... >An MSNBC guest accused Elon Musk of promoting "stochastic terrorists" like Libs of TikTok to cultivate an "extreme far-right audience" on Twitter Monday. >During a segment on "Deadline: White House" focused on the emergence of extremist groups in the U.S., host Nicole Wallace asked self-declared fascism-fighter Kristofer Goldsmith to discuss how Musk's purchase of Twitter has contributed to the issue. >"Elon Musk is very deliberately cultivating an extreme far-right audience, and very specifically an anti-trans audience," Goldsmith, who serves as CEO of Veterans Fighting Fascism, responded. >Goldsmith claimed that Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers created a "trans panic" online by using "slurs to try to dehumanize trans-Americans and trans individuals abroad and say that they're predatory toward children." He also blamed them for causing alleged threats against "drag events." >Both accounts repost others' social media content to expose members of the LGBTQ+ community and others who espouse radical views to children. >"What they’re doing is they’re taking this like QAnon myth, their Pizzagate pedophile conspiracy theory…and they’re mainstreaming it. All through what has become one of the most, whether we like it or not, important social media platforms in existence," Goldsmith said. >According to his website, Goldsmith, who has made frequent appearances on MSNBC, describes himself an "investigator and consultant who takes an unconventional approach to fighting against domestic fascist organizations and unlawful militias." >Goldsmith told Wallace that he believes Musk is intentionally destroying Twitter and turning it "into a raging cesspool because Elon thinks he has something to gain from the chaos." >"That is why he is promoting not just stochastic terrorism on his own, but he’s interacting with stochastic terrorists like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers and all of these other far-right activists who single out the trans community and the broader LGBTQ+ community with acts of violence and threats of violence," he alleged. >Libs of TikTok, which boasts over 1.4 million followers on Twitter, was suspended six times prior to Musk's takeover for allegedly violating the platform's "hateful conduct" policy. The second installment of the "Twitter Files," revealed last week that Twitter internally acknowledged that the account had "not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy" but still proceeded with the suspensions anyway. >The account publicly thanked Musk for giving her a sense of "vindication" by publicizing Twitter's internal communications. >"They suspended me multiple times knowing I never violated any policies. This is what happens when you talk about things that they don’t want you to talk about," she wrote on Twitter. "So glad those days on Twitter are over. Thanks @elonmusk." >Musk responded to her post, promising to make Twitter "much better" under his leadership. >"You’re welcome. Twitter won’t be perfect in the future," he tweeted, "but it will be much better."
- Macha 2y ago
  > You're assuming it was a business transaction. Of course not. Musk never intended to make a direct profit. > As a political transaction, if anything, Musk paid very little for what he got. I think the fact that he tried to get out of it, indicates that this wasn't a long term plan, though he did eventually make political use out of it.
  - cma 2y ago
    And if they let him out of it he could have always immediately made another cheaper offer.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - ergocoder 2y ago
    He tried to get out because the market crashed. FB went down like 3x. I don’t think there is anything more than that. There was no harm in trying to get out and potentially buying it at a half price. He tried and failed.
  - root_axis 2y ago
    I think he bargained on getting a lower price, but it was definitely a political decision, it's only that the horse he was originally betting on was DeSantis. After that fell through he eventually found his way to Trump.
davidham 2y ago
Are you sure? He used it to help get Donald Trump elected, and now Musk has an unassailable position in government and tremendous power to steer government spending to his businesses, and to cripple the agencies that regulate them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  Unassailable? Musk is a lightning rod. Surely he must realize that after he has served his purpose, he will be cast aside and likely end up imprisoned if not worse, right? Have people paid no attention to what happens to almost everyone in Trump's orbit? In Musk's case it will be hugely politically valuable to use him as a sponge for anger, pretend that he was free-ranging, and cast him aside. Therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. We've seen this pattern with Trump time and time again, and it's amazing that Musk seems so completely delusional about this guaranteed outcome.
  - davidham 2y ago
    Musk is different from the other people in Trump’s orbit. Trump can’t afford to throw Musk aside or turn him into an enemy. Not yet anyway. This is not to say that there won’t be a breakup, there may yet be. But it seems like Musk was able to parlay his Twitter investment into tremendous direct influence over the government, a pearl without price. I don’t know that he ever cared whether Twitter made money or not.
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      Trump and the MAGA cult is far bigger than Musk. Musk was against Trump, and actually backed DeSantis. Did not matter at all. If Trump turned his cult against Musk, Musk would be done. Immediately all of the bootlickers and retweeters would deride everything Musk has said or done. Musk's money would be meaningless, and he'd be the next "Soros" in their minds. Musk clearly cares incredibly about whether Twitter makes money, and has been desperately flailing around to try to make it viable. They're currently suing advertisers who don't advertise there, which is farcical. Musk really believed his grand "we'll be your bank!" thing would be some simple thing (because everything is super easy to do for someone who doesn't actually understand or do any of it)
b112 2y ago
He over-offered in hindsight. At the time however, no, as mega-low interest rate money was still a thing, and companies such as Twitter had significantly higher valuation as a result. This is why he wanted to backout. The metrics had changed, by no fault of Twitter or him.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > This is why he wanted to backout. I think people completely forgot about this part: After the initial offer he tried to back out of it, saying Twitter wasn't actually worth that much. Twitter sued Musk to force the deal through, and it was finalized after months in court.

ljm 2y ago

I wonder how many of those investors have skin in the game and are sycophantically trying to avoid Musk leaving them holding the bag.

timmg 2y ago

> What? I don’t get it. So almost 3 years and “growing profile” to reach the same valuation? What was the growth for? In fairness, that was a frothy time for stocks. Twitter stock price was at an unsustainable price (IMHO) when he bought it.

cma 2y ago
Compare market cap of others in their segment: Meta has grown a lot since then, Snap not so much.
- ergocoder 2y ago
  To be fair, twitter hasn’t really competed or been comparable to Meta for a while. Not saying that they aren’t competitors, but it is more like they have been out-executed by Meta even before Musk’s acquisition. Way before. To be more fair, any company being compared to FB would mostly look worse.
  - cma 2y ago
    Nvidia in same timeframe far outgrew Meta, maybe no other major ones, except maybe netflix recovering from an even earlier drop. A good portion of Meta's gain was just getting back to where they were before the Apple store changes induced drop (that also hit Twitter).

llm_nerd 2y ago

It's worth noting that the widely reported "$44 billion valuation from investors" was Elon Musk himself making someone who co-invested in the original buyout whole again. e.g. Elon Musk is the one who set the valuation. All of these numbers are fantasy. Similarly Musk has been giving lenders stakes in "xAI" as well to compensate for the eventual failure of their loans, and again that is being reported as X debt losing its discount. Everything in US equities is absolute farce, especially anything that involves Elon Musk. It's all fantasy numbers.

rvz 2y ago
> Everything in US equities is absolute farce, especially anything that involves Elon Musk. It's all fantasy numbers. Exactly. Then you would also agree that the entire startup industry, especially these AI startups are beyond overvalued. What matters is when it all crashes down to reality.

rchaud 2y ago

Yeah and weWork got a "$50 billion" valuation from its bagholders. Then they released their actual books for the S-1, and well long story short, they're circling the toilet as a publicly traded company.

Zigurd 2y ago

Evidently, that $44 billion valuation didn't stick long enough for the most recent investment round, in which Elon and some tiny investor group I've never heard of and isn't an actual VC invested $1 billion at a $32 billion valuation. Considering that was probably all Elon's money, he could've priced the round any way he wanted.