← Back to context

Comment by baggachipz

8 hours ago

Well surely this acquisition is above board. Nothing funny going on here, just good old business as usual.

> Well surely this acquisition is above board.

What makes you think it isn’t?

  • There's an epic conflict of interest here with Musk owning most of both companies. And they're in entirely separate fields, there is no plausible synergy here to be gained.

    • How can you have a conflict of interest if they're entirely separate fields? They have different interests, so where's the conflict?

      You don't need synergies to justify a merger. They're often used as justification as in paying well above market price. But it has nothing to do with actual justification. You can just have a holding company of businesses

      1 reply →

    • Yeah but who can be hurt by this, these are both private companies? So whose interest is his "conflicting" with? I'm sure the shareholders will raise it with him and/or bring a lawsuit if they aren't happy (they probably are happy).

  • Musk has a history of having one of his more successful companies buying one of his less successful companies. xAI bought X, and Tesla bought SolarCity

  • And hey, look at that, pure coincidence, Tesla just gave xAI $2B! Now it's back in Musk's private pockets! How handy!

What's funny? Do you think the investors are against this? The investor's aren't idiots. I imagine the typical investor in Elon Musk's companies would approve of this sort of thing. So what's the problem? Besides, its a private company with Musk as majority shareholder in both. That's the beauty of private companies, you can just do things.

I wish more companies were private and ambitious. I'm tired of companies like Apple making marginal spec bumps to their phones and milking the same products for decades

  • > What's funny? Do you think the investors are against this? The investor's aren't idiots.

    Any proof of that?

    • More than 70% of voting shares supported the package, very close to the level of support in the original 2018 vote. This excludes Musks share.

      And consider that this is retroactive, meaning it's backpay. They're literally voting to give the guy $50b for work performed. He has a lot of confidence from his investors. And if there were issues, there would be lawsuits. Ironically the only lawsuits that get brought up, like the one about the pay package, are basically trolls, from a guy that had 9 shares.

      Besides the parent is the one making a claim that something not above board is going on so burden of proof is on him.

      Finally, it's a private company where Musk is the majority shareholder. He's moving money from one pocket into another, and any moves will be reflected in his attempt to raise money with the IPO coming this year.

      Why do people online pretend not to understand?

      2 replies →

  • Apple just launched their own silicon chips just a few years ago. They're very ambitious but still calculated.

  • > > I'm tired of companies like Apple making marginal spec bumps to their phones and milking the same products for decades

    At least what Apple does is real not make believe like everything Musk claims , disappear boring Apple or even boring Microsoft, Oracle, IBM etc.

    And the world would come to a screeching halt, disappear all of Musk companies and people would barely notice.

    You seem to be eager to be sold dreams , that's exactly what vaporware salesmen like Musk hope to find on their path

  • The investors want to cash out, Musk needs lots of money to plow into his latest toy that so far only excels in ridiculing him and sexual harassment/CSAM, so they make a deal to take in xAI and go public. Win win.

It's widely reported that Musk is a majority shareholder of xAI and the controlling shareholder of SpaceX (close to 80% of voting shares). Not surprising that he would be looking to consolidate ownership under one entity especially if he perceives significant synergies (i.e., data centres in space).

  • Data centers in space are a hilariously bad idea. Where would the heat go? This idea is like the opposite of liquid cooling.

    • Shocked to see SpaceX buy the datacenter in space meme. Where does the power come from? Where does the heat go? Why add (high) launch costs to your buildout capex? Why add radiation as another risk factor to your already-unreliable GPUs? Am I missing something fundamental here...?

    • Aside from Elon Musk, there are a few other people with a lot of capital aiming to do the same thing. That means, either they are all wrong (possible) or this problem has been solved somehow and the solution itself is not public.

      Google and Amazon are doing the same thing. Maybe it is a moonshot (pun intended), but Musk is hardly alone in the push.

      https://www.wsj.com/tech/bezos-and-musk-race-to-bring-data-c...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/01/technology/space-data-cen...

    • Not to mention the huge issues of cosmic rays. Sure, if the lifespan of the satellite is expected to be low, then maybe tolerable. But even then, how would this be financially viable?

    • I didn't say it was a good idea, just that if Musk perceives it's a good idea then it makes sense why he would want to combine the two businesses.

      1 reply →

    • Indeed. But it's also a hilariously Musky idea! Some moderate technical competence paired with sociopathy and an ego orders of magnitude too big, and voila, you get Cybertrucks, Hyperloops, Neuralinks, Teslabots, datacenters in space, and all the other garbage the man spews.

      I cannot wait for him to one day be hit in the face by reality.

      1 reply →

  • I have never understood how Data centers in space ever make economic sense, the payload, latency and many other issues make it difficult at least for the immediate needs