I dunno, data centers in space seems even more outlandish than P2P space travel. The math on the orbital data center idea indicates that these things would need hundreds of thousands of square meters of radiative cooling. Absolutely bonkers that anyone is falling for this shit.

And even that pales in comparison to their estimate of a $22.7T (T!) market for their AI "enterprise applications".

As a point of reference, the GDP of the United States is roughly $30T.

> When the Chinese land on the moon sometime in 2030 and the US still doesn't have a way to get there, will Elon finally reap the consequences for his lies or just the interim NASA admin that gave Space X the contract?

In all likelihood, neither.

[dead]

> this is the new playbook.

Same as the old playbook, just scaled up. Tesla got billions from state subsidies and selling carbon credits.

When I followed TeslaQ, the valuation was around 60b. Today Tesla has 39b in accumulated retained earning (pr latest 10k, not q).

If the thesis was that Tesla would be unable to create a system that would churn out cars that could be sold at scale with an economic surplus, then we have to reject it.

Or maybe that's just what value is, what someone else would pay for something.

All that. But also he makes products so compelling that people who dislike him drives in them. "Fuck Elon" gotta be an all time top seller among bumper stickers.

> few could have anticipated that Tesla and Musk would be unaffected by valid scrutiny and criticism.

This almost implies that the scrutiny itself, and not the economic reality, should be the reason of Teslas demise or otherwise lesser financial outcome. Which seems a little self referential. If Elon doesn't wash his hands after peeing, and we pointed it out, that would be valid criticism. Ewww pee-hands. But the economic reality and aggregate outcome wouldn't change.

Like not even if the frontpage of WSJ, The Times or FT said "eww Elon pee-hands".

And that the thing - with enterprises of this scale, you could always nitpick and find some things that are suboptimal. But we gotta see it in proportion. 100mm accounting error in Tesla is not the same as a 100mm accounting error in the local McDonalds franchise. For one the error is magnitudes larger than their real economic footprint. For the other it's a rounding error.

TL;DR: I hear you - yes there is valid criticism. We just gotta see it in proportion. I like Teslas cars. But I don't like pee-hands.

How exactly do those numbers add up in your mind?

At around $60B valuation sometime in 2018, how was TeslaQ spot on?

Are you maybe claiming that Tesla is lying in their current disclosures?

More like: why would you think it's not already priced in. Answer: I'm super special!

New name: Stark Industries?

By making inclusion near-certain and fast, the rule changes may actually reduce the post-IPO inclusion pop (it gets priced in at IPO) while increasing the IPO price itself and the volatility on rebalance day due to the float constraint.

yes! Michael Munger expressed it beautifully: "anything that is going to happen has already happened"

The rule change where nasdaq adds a weighting factor to spacex's float is what causes distortions - it artificially increases the size of spacex's cap weight without actually having more shares.

Fortunately, this only affects indices that follow nasdaq, and from what i know, no other index is following this. That means it's "safe" to purchase a globally diversified, cap weighted index fund (safe as in the float isn't manipulated).

People talk of the demise of passive investing due to this, but most of the commentary fail to mention it's a specific, nasdaq thing and not a general change.

You don't have to argue the opposite of a prediction to disbelieve sources with poor track records.

Well, the entire stock market is a world of thievery. Are you saying do not invest in any stocks and let your money rot in a savings account due to inflation?

Explain to me how adding weights to the float is undoing a previous manipulation and not manipulating the numbers.

Well, if Tesla gets merged into SpaceX at a record valuation (as was rumored is the intention recently), people with short positions would end up shorting SpaceX.

There are a lot of high stakes bets wrapped up in that company at this point already. AI, orbital launch business, communications networks, a little bit of Twitter/X, etc. And soon robots, grid battery, solar panels, electrical vehicles, autonomous driving, etc. They don't all have to work out to justify the combined valuation. Of course the facts are that quite a few of these lines of businesses are generating many billions in revenue already. It's at least a more diversified bet if a merge happens. Which might be why some share holders might prefer this. I don't have shares but I think that's a pretty rational attitude.

Still a risky bet of course. But betting that it will all fail might be the riskier one. Maybe it will just end up somewhere in between and not quite live up to expectations but still be a business generating lots of revenue with some healthy growth.

This is like ANY company. What company will last forever. Not many.

Elon Derangement Syndrome I presume.

Some of the pessimists are absolutely perma-bears who hate any thing to do with Elon to the point of madness, but still doesn't change the fact that this IPO makes no financial sense no matter how reasonably you try to look at it.

I listened to all 3 hours of the Dwarkesh interview with Elon. I would really really love to see mass drivers on the moon, but all the facts were obviously made up on the spot. This wasn't just the usual Elon exaggerating. It was pure fantasy stuff. All the hard engineering questions were just being hand-waved away along with reasons of why the data centers couldn't be here on earth.

Combine that with the fact that Elon will retain complete control of SpaceX. Yeah no. I wouldn't be crazy enough to short the stock but I really don't want any of my money in it either.

All investments in equities carry risk of losing money. You also have a choice how much, if any, you are in the stock market and which stocks. As the market conditions change or the economy changes, it is your responsibility to manage your own investments.

How is that supposed to answer the question? It seems like you completely ignored it and decided to share unrelated complaints, the things you describe are not even vaguely theft-adjacent.

I'm willing to bet that most funds will just change their reconstitution process to give themselves a much longer period to add new IPO stocks to their portfolios and end up avoiding most of the drama.

On the other hand if they don't I'm making popcorn because the lawsuits and political fallout if / when this goes wrong is going to be epic.

Those poor pension funds, unable to make their own decisions. Forced to keep all of their money in $NDX forever.

It must be terrible to be so utterly powerless.

> Index funds are for people who don't want to know about the details and put the work in. They go by general recommendations.

Oh yes, all those poor giant institutional money managers who don't care about the details would be so shocked if only someone told them about this "rug pull".

>Now the underlying rules got changed, undeniably in favor and through pressure of few individuals.

This is ridiculous. The entire purpose of index funds is to reflect the market, the rules are being changed to enable the funds to better reflect the market.

Basically everyone who wants broad index funds wants this. If you don't want this, you simply need to look for a different product.

What are you even trying to say? Where does the taxman enter into this?