"in May 2026, we entered into Cloud Services Agreements with Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”), an AI research and development public benefit corporation, with respect to access to compute capacity across COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II. Pursuant to these agreements, the customer has agreed to pay us $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, with capacity ramping in May and June 2026 at a reduced fee"<p>Anthropic is paying them 1.25 billion per month to serve Claude in their data centers. That's more revenue than Starlink. In fact that's their largest revenue stream lol.
> COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II<p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177</a><p>It may be sick, but someone's got a sense of humor over there :)
As far as I can Google the colossus data centers did cost about 7-10 and 18 B respectively.<p>Renting them out in part at 1.25 B pr month sounds like a very good deal for spacex.
It's really not.
can you elaborate?
Napkin math on 5 year depreciation is 5.5 billion per year for 28 billion. However the 28 billion is cash upfront, spacex is probably paying 10-20% interest on the 28 billion for another 2-6 billion per year.<p>So net you are looking at finance expenses of 7-11 billion per year. The electricity costs will be significant on top of that, but harder to get a solid read on.<p>Net of everything, spacex <i>may</i> be getting a 14-28 percent yield before paying for electricity. After electricity/insurance/data/taxes/other expenses - I’d guess it’s anywhere between 0% and 7% yield.<p>Odds are good that Anthropic abandons the deal before the depreciation schedule completes. Who is going to rent the GPUs then?
It’s also interesting that Cursor (that spacex is acquiring ) also just announced yesterday they are training in colossus.<p>So who’s using it? Is spacex just renting out parts of their data center? Or is cursor done done?
At the time of the announcement IIRC the deal was only for Colossus 1. Is Anthropic also leasing Colossus 2 new?<p>At the time the consensus narrative was that SpaceX no longer needed Colossus 1 for Grok and that was why it could be leased to Anthropic while Colossus 2 would handle Grok training and inference. Does Anthropic also leasing Colossus 2 change this?
has anyone done the math on:
1. cost to build out and run the data centers
2. cost of compute (hardware and energy)
3. depreciation of legacy GPU and thus value at the end of 3 years.<p>And then compare the $45B revenue from Anthropic to see if it's mostly break even or if one of Anthropic/SpaceX came out ahead on the contract.
SpaceX is already indicating their strategy on this, because they’re renting their last-gen data center to Anthropic and keeping the current-gen data center for themselves. Rinse and repeat.
Maybe it is a win/win. Anthropic gets desperately needed compute at a fair price. SpaceXAI sells compute at a fair price and gets desperately needed revenues.
Well Colossus 1 has 230k GPUs, including 30k GB200s and Colossus 2 has 550k GB200s & GB300s.<p>So my guess on costs would be like ~$10B for Colossus 1, and Colossus 2 would be like ~20b.
It has $25 billion on AI cap expenditure in the S1. So generally looks like a solid deal for SpaceX.
[dead]
The whole AI world really is completely circular spending where every one loses money along the way. The only one really making any money is Nvidia.
The most honest memory cartel is reporting stupid profit numbers too!<p>>Samsung chip profit jumps almost 50-fold; supply shortage to worsen in 2027<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/samsung-elec-q1-profit-surges-eightfold-record-2026-04-30/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-r...</a><p>>South Korean April exports rise 48.0% y/y as chip boom extends<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-april-exports-rise-480-yy-chip-boom-continues-2026-05-01/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-april...</a><p>To the point where the big memory makers are suddenly trillion AI-dollar companies.
How is SpaceX not making money?<p>Total investment is 20-40B, rent to Anthropic for 45B over 3 years.<p>Anthropic is also profitable now.
Except that they're loaning a bunch of money to their "customers" to "buy" their products. It's still really circular.
Wow! 3 years is an eternity at this level.
Whoa. I've said before, but I think Dario severely underestimated the coming demand and ensuing need for compute, and would need to pay through the nose when the crunch hit. I suspect that Google deal also worked out better for Google. This data point supports that view.<p>While Altman got laughed out of the room as a "podcasting bro" asking for trillions in investment in compute, Dario was going on about how difficult it is to forecast capacity on the Dwarkesh podcast. Seems like a major unforced error on Dario's part. What I cannot understand is how they both came to such different perspectives; my best guess is that ChatGPT has so much more traffic that OpenAI could gauge the trends much better.<p>This won't hurt Anthropic long-term of course, but this won't look great on that balance sheet, that too right around the time they plan to IPO.
They have different personalities. I can only imagine Altman wants to stay on top of the chaos, and believes he will come out ahead whatever happens, while Dario is trying to stay realistic and mitigate worst-case scenarios.
Lmao wtf. Based on this post I can clearly see you've never properly understood what balance sheets are and how they are created.<p>Stop posting stuff you have ZERO clue about.
That's fair, I'm not a finance person, just meant to say that this is costing them way more than they would have liked at a critical stage in their corporate evolution. I'm curious though what your take is.
Everyone laughed at Allbirds getting into the business of selling compute.
$45 billion for a 3 year <i>rental</i>.
What would be interesting to know how much did it cost xAI to build it ? Ai says between $18-$40 billion to just build, without running cost, but no idea how close to reality this is.
The AI row of the capex table in the S-1 should be a pretty close approximation.
Nobody pays MSRP at that scale
Closer to 18b than 40. Running costs are 1-2b a year.
Anthropic is getting capacity from Colossus 1 not Colossus 2 it sounded like. The initial colossus capex was under $5B, making that an even more astounding payoff.<p>Edit: S1 states both are being leased so the 20-25B initial investment probably more relevant
The S-1 states that it gets capacity from both Colossus 1 and Colossus 2.
... and a sign Anthropic couldn't find enough compute anywhere else, so they had to bite the bullet. Interesting.
how much did SpaceX / xAI pay for these GPUs? After 3 years they'll probably be mostly deprecated.
Anthropic, you mean the supply chain risk anthropic as so brightly conveyed by petey
Crazy this company will IPO for >1B with such bad financials! That said, Starlink seems to be a real cash machine, not as good as ads but enough to support AI bets.<p>2025:<p>- Revenue: $18.7B, up from $14.0B in 2024<p>- Operating loss: -$2.6B<p>- Net loss: -$4.9B<p>- Adjusted EBITDA: $6.6B<p>- Operating cash flow: $6.8B<p>- Capex: $20.7B<p>Segment breakdown:<p>- Starlink / Connectivity: $11.4B revenue, $4.4B operating income, $7.2B adj. EBITDA<p>- Space / launch: $4.1B revenue, -$657M operating loss<p>- AI / xAI / X: $3.2B revenue, -$6.4B operating loss<p>Starlink metrics:<p>- Subscribers: 8.9M at end-2025, 10.3M by Mar 31 2026<p>- ARPU: $99/month in 2023, $81 in 2025, $66 in Q1 2026<p>Balance sheet as of Mar 31 2026:<p>- Cash: $15.9B<p>- Marketable securities: $7.8B<p>- Total assets: $102.1B<p>- Total liabilities: $60.5B<p>- Debt / finance leases: about $30.3B
The numbers overall are worse than I expected. I can't believe Serious People are talking about putting this in the market at a trilly.<p>> Starlink seems to be a real cash machine<p>It has been said more than once that Starlink financials cannot be analyzed apart from SpaceX financials. Very easy to move the launch costs from one entity to the other depending on whether it is more beneficial to show more revenue for SpaceX or more profit for Starlink.
The use of EBITDA for Starlink is also interesting. For something like terrestrial fiber, I can imagine thinking that there’s a lot of depreciation on the books, but that most of the equipment keeps working after the depreciation period or is cheaper to replace than it was to buy, and that the right of ways and attachments don’t really depreciate. But Starlink satellites are actually gone at the end of their useful life.<p>I have not dug into the filing to see how this really breaks down.
Looks like it's gonna be closer to 2 trilly
The space launch operating loss is like 10% of the Starlink operating income.<p>So Starlink is a cash cow!
I can't believe that my index funds are going to be looted to pay for this turd.
As if any of the marketcaps actualy reflect a company's true value.
It's never just about financials.
That's kind of the whole point of a stock market. If you already had a solid revenue stream, you wouldn't need investment.<p>These numbers would be kind of typical for a software play, since the great thing about software is that you write it once and then sell it many times. They're making a similar assertion for hardware: "fund rocket ship design, and sell it many times (i.e. lots of launches)".<p>The weird looking part to he is cramming xAI into it. It's a completely different business with little overlap that I can see, in a crowded market that they are far from leading.
> The weird looking part to he is cramming xAI into it. It's a completely different business with little overlap that I can see, in a crowded market that they are far from leading.<p>My personal theory is that Musk wants to roll up all his companies into a mega corporation that he fully controls, and this is part of the process. I expect Tesla and SpaceX to merge years down the line.<p>Of course, the counter to this thesis is that he didn't roll in Neuralink or Boring Company. But its probably that these three companies + Tesla are the ones he's most passionate about.
These numbers would be ridiculous even for a software play. < 20B in revenue at almost 2T valuation? That's almost 100x revenue multiples at a not so great revenue growth rate.
There were talks in the past about spinning Starlink out. Perhaps the thinking that led them to keep Starlink in is the same thinking about their new data center business (what they got from xAI and will grow in orbit in the future)
putting tesla robots on the moon ran by LLMs seems to be a pretty coherent overall plan, I don't think it's different
Spacex has been playing fuckfuck games in recent months to boost their subscriber numbers.<p>The day after I got my dish I got an email that the price of the base plan would double. They also sent residential subscribers "free" dishes, which a ton of people took them up on right before the price change
I'm surprised launch is only -$0.65B, given just how much were they sinking into launch infrastructure and R&D for Starship.<p>Guess Falcon 9 the old reliable is still printing cash in the meanwhile.
Can someone ELI5 Starlink revenue sources? At the core, it's an ISP (but served from space). What does Starlink have that differentiates from any other ISP? Is it because the TAM is global? That may be true at the margin, but I am sure most eligible subscribers would prefer a land-based system (eg no one in SF is cancelling their Xfinity to use Starlink) so how much is really left for them?
It's because they're good speeds in a lot of places that couldn't get good speeds before. It's also great for mobile work sites, i.e. construction sites, drilling camps, other b2b service businesses where a bunch of portacoms rock up to a site. Anywhere it's mildly hilly you can't actually assume you'll get a signal outside of town but a satellite dish basically guarantees that. Even if you can guarantee your in a spot long term the upfront cost of fibre or a tower may not balance out as cheaper than just eating the higher bandwidth costs.<p>It's also worth remembering that in a lot of places with low density it isn't appealing for competitors to build out to, so there's a lot of markets where it's a no brainer to switch from the local monopoly to starlink because the price was already inflated and it was worse service.
Starlink is a cash machine because the costs are externalised to the rest of the company, all in it's a money pit.
SpaceX itself wouldn't be that bad, it's the xAI. It's going to burn through cash.<p>I remember Josh Brown talking about Peleton after its IPO: "Great Product, Horrible Investment"
What is the best way to hedge against this turkey being included in my index funds?
It's pretty much expected that a rapidly growing high tech company is gonna have a lot of losses and debt right? They're just spending huge amounts of money on capex. Not doing so would be like floating minerals in Starcraft: symptomatic of bad macro.
Typo: I'm sure you meant >1T.<p>>ARPU: $99/month in 2023, $81 in 2025, $66 in Q1 2026<p>Oof, are they already on diminishing returns phase?<p>While I don't think the financials are bad, I agree, this is definitely not a 1T company (but the market can stay irrational ...).
Starlink is giving away the satellite dishes for free to grow customers. These dishes are expensive to manufacture and cost the company hundreds of dollars each. The estimated manufacturing cost of a Starlink standard dish is around $400.
That shouldn't be included in ARPU.
Which is a fine thing to say, but CAC vs LTV (customer acquisition cost vs lifetime value of the customer) is the underlying equation. If it costs them $150 to give away a dish, but they get, say, $300 before the user churns, they still come out ahead.
They've been upping the subscription prices recently past few months.
Depreciation should be quite substantial - I recall reading that the starlink sats have a 5 year life expectancy?
If they cleaved off xAI and let it die, they'd be in much better shape!
Did you see that they are getting $15B/year from Anthropic because of what xAI built?
xAI is by far their most profitable segment, receiving 1.25B a month from Anthropic.
If any company can put profitable data centers in space, it will be SpaceX. But I doubt that any company can. The difficulties of the physics and engineering of cooling seem like they will always outweigh the advantages of keeping your data center on Earth.<p>I am annoyed by the insistence that the value of this company comes from something that no one has been able to show is possible yet without multiplying it by the obvious risk factor. And they seem to have got other companies like Alphabet[1] and Anthropic to publicize the idea, to give it more credibility.<p>I do not want my pension to automatically buy shares at $1T, but it looks like it will have no choice.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.reuters.com/science/google-spacex-talks-explore-data-centers-orbit-wsj-reports-2026-05-12/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/science/google-spacex-talks-explore-...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://spacenews.com/anthropic-to-consider-using-spacex-orbital-data-center-satellites/" rel="nofollow">https://spacenews.com/anthropic-to-consider-using-spacex-orb...</a>
This: "I do not want my pension to automatically buy shares at $1T, but it looks like it will have no choice."<p>They know the game very well. They know that if they manage to pump up the valuation high enough - they will be automatic money flowing in - regardless of actual valuations.
The unit economics of orbital DC just doesn't work with today's technology. Assuming 0 ongoing OpEx(free energy), the launch cost of the satellite itself, along with solar panels, radiators as well as the chip themselves just doesn't make sense given the ~5 year operational lifespan of both the chips and the satellites.
Wouldn't your pension be buying shares at $2T?
Wait until Elon learns what black body radiation is. A vacuum is an insulator, not a heat sink.
How do you price regulatory restrictions? The laws governing space are more lax than those governing how much chromium Tesla can dump into their waste water. By building in space, they get to completely sidestep any regulatory issues on Earth, like not being allowed to build what they want, wherever they want, how they want. It's annoying getting permits to do whatever on my house, but for businesses, it's a real problem.
elon has a great wall of china's worth of plaques with comments exactly like this, and his companies are still worth more than their combined weight in gold
It’s surprising just how low the revenue is for SpaceX. There are some 700+ companies with larger revenue figures, and yet just a small handful exceed SpaceX’s proposed valuation.<p>In 2026 one gets the impression that SpaceX is a huge company, among the largest in the world. It’s wild to see that its business volume is smaller than Northrop, smaller than Apple’s peripherals alone, smaller than Avnet (heard of ‘em?).
SpaceX is incredibly exciting, but I was skeptical when XAI and Twitter were rolled into it. The S-1 here makes it even more disappointing.<p>I did want a piece of SpaceX but the valuation here is pretty eye watering compared to the fundamentals. I don't think I can put my money into this, although I suspect it will still do gangbusters based on hype and momentum.<p>Its also a real shame that SpaceX's competitors have not been able to get the same level of momentum. I know Starship has been delayed but its still hard to argue with total mass to orbit they're achieving right now.
SpaceX would be an interesting IPO without XAI. It is hemorrhaging money and is in what, 6th place in the AI race while hemorrhaging X subscribers every month. Theoretically the company could focus on what is profitable and be strong fundamental company, but this is Elon we are talking about he is going to do whatever he wants to do.
To be honest, it could be one with XAi too. Im no fan of Musk and Grok but the deal with Anthropic pointed out by other contributors isn't nothing. And I don't think SpaceX losing money at this stage isn't quite the problem that people think it is -- as someone who as worked at companies losing money and then going on to make quite a bit. Revenue growth <i>is</i> there.<p>The issue is that none of this is really worth $2T <i>now</i>. Yes, you might expect that SpaceX could launch Starship, build space-based datacenters, get a good foothold on the AI market, and grow Twitter. But you don't want to pay for future performance now, you want it to be discounted because you're taking on the risk that those things don't happen. $2T feels like expecting that story has already been actualized.
You'll get a piece regardless if you're in index funds, as they're being strong-armed into buying at this awful price
I think this only applies currently for the Nasdaq index, and the only Nasdaq index fund that comes to mind is QQQ. I think fewer people are currently being hit than are worried about it.
They aren't being strong-armed, NASDAQ is literally changing the rules to appease Musk and get in on the grift. Move your money elsewhere while you still can.
Its unfortunate that its being fast tracked and I'm really annoyed that NASDAQ is doing this. But I think that the impact should be relatively minimal, at least for the funds I hold. I really just find the transparent grift annoying.
Hopefully their competitors will keep advancing but that just reinforces that how hard space is and that SpaceX is doing things no one else currently can.
Finally ! Can we end the debate about how mind blowingly profitable this company is ?<p>Mind you, those numbers don't take into account YET the Twitter debt / xAI merger burden - which will run into tens of billions per year.<p>I just can't, can't wait until this whole Musk fugazzi finally blows up.
>those numbers don't take into account YET the Twitter debt / xAI merger burden<p>Clearly untrue. Given that's the source of the reported steep losses
Bruh. This is unhinged.<p>SpaceX is a good company with a ton of potential future revenue on their data center and Starlink businesses. Nothing about this company is fugazzi.
> I just can't, can't wait until this whole Musk fugazzi finally blows up.<p>Be careful what you wish for. The collateral damage would be mind boggling.
Spacex is not too big to fail.
Yes but only if its added before the index funds. Let's just hope that the nasdaq and the other markets just don't take spacex (Nasdaq is literally bending its rules to accodomate SpaceX)<p>The worst thing is that we don't even have a say in all of this and chances are most likely that its gonna IPO and get listed on the index funds soon and once it gets into Index funds, a lot of collateral damage might happen.<p>I must say that I am not quite optimistic about there not existing collateral damage, there is happening a lot of corruption within financial markets in general with bending laws. The worst part is that we all would/might be the most impacted by it all
So be it. What's the alternative ? Continue a bubble ? Ride on the 'FSD by the end of the year' or 'thousands of Optimus next year' for the next 10 years ?<p>The guys is openly lying and clearly a drug addict at this point and people think he's not cooking the books ?<p>Musk empire will end up being a much bigger scandal than Enron ever was. It's just a matter of time until it unfolds.
SpaceX and Tesla are different companies, fyi.
The idea that 100s of global pension funds don't do their due diligence when investing 100s of millions or billions of their members' future retirement funds is extremely naive. With sincerity, I hope you can find a way not to be so emotional about what Musk says and be more grounded in what his companies and their employees are <i>doing</i>.
Have you ever heard of a Mortgage Backed Security?
or Bespoke Tranche Opportunity, they don't say CDO any more. I mean, it's the same thing, but still.
Investing in SpaceX is one thing. Investing in SpaceX that is now merged with several other failed companies that each incur massive yearly additional losses.... let's see how long those funds still hold SpaceX.
>The collateral damage would be mind boggling.<p>Nah.<p>Nothing critical is running on top of any of SpaceXAI's offerings.
Arguably Ukraine is still alive because of StarLink.<p>Granted, Russia is trying hard to make every mistake in the book, but StarLink’s benefits for UA and cutting off RU units from StarLink was very advantageous this year.
NASA mostly runs on SpaceX, so it depends if you consider ISS to be critical. But I wouldn't say it would be mind boggling.
Cool, nationalise SpaceX, reintegrate its costs into NASA, done.<p>The US would never let its access to space be cut off.
They make some incredibly outlandish claims over their total addressable market, one can only wonder where $26 trillion dollars in expected AI revenue would even come from, with 22T of that being from "enterprise" when they have no real products yet.<p>The whole thing looks to be proped up by Starlink which seems to be a genuinely solid business. xAI looks to be costing twice as much as it produces, and we dont even have good numbers for this yet since the deal is so new.
This feels like WeWork but if WeWork also owned a successful coffee shop.
Their stated TAM is bonkers. A total of $28.5 trillion: $370B Space, $1.6T Connectivity, $26.5T in AI. With AI becoming more and more commoditized, the AI number is insane.
With these kind of made up numbers, they might as well have simply used the fucking Kardeshev scale.<p>Just compute the energy output of the Sun and claim they'll build a Dyson sphere around it.<p>Can charge a nice hefty subscription fee for using the Sun, just like Netflix.
Kardashev Type II is mentioned three times in the doc.<p>> We believe the next paradigm shift for humanity is the creation of a resilient, perpetually expanding spacefaring civilization that drives continuous innovation across new frontiers, ultimately propelling us to Kardashev Type II status—a civilization that harnesses the full energy output of our Sun.<p>To be fair, he's not claiming here that SpaceX will accomplish this themselves, solo.
Shhh, that's SpaceX's real play. Put a giant sun shade between the Earth and the sun, and make everyone on Earth pay for sunlight. No pay? No crops. No food. Solves global warming.
That number is grossly inflated for every S-1. It's about as close to meaningless as you could possibly get.<p>For example, I used to work for an insurance-related tech company. They claimed their TAM was $9T-- the value of the entire global insurance market.
well if they talking future when US gov print money at unbelievable rate then this is very plausible (especially if they can work on space mining)
So this confirms that SpaceX was making a lot of cash and plowing it back into R&D, and that the X/Twitter/xAI merger is concrete shoes on the good parts.
148 mentions of "rocket".
773 mentions of " AI ".
That's because they use other terms like "Falcon 9/Heavy", "Starship", "Super Heavy", "launch vehicle/system", "booster", "upper/lower stage", and "spacecraft".
"XAI, the artificial intelligence company Elon Musk created and recently merged into SpaceX, is not helping on that front. The filing shows SpaceX directed around 60% of its capital spending in 2025 to its AI division, or around $20 billion. And yet that division — which houses the chatbot Grok — lost billions last year, and only grew revenue by about 22%. That’s far below the reported revenue growth rates at frontier AI labs."<p><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/the-spacex-ipo-filing-has-arrived/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/the-spacex-ipo-filing-has-...</a>
"Mr. Musk or his affiliates may become aware, from time to time, of certain business opportunities ... and may direct such opportunities to other businesses in which they have invested."<p>"Under our charter, Mr. Musk and his affiliates are not restricted from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us"<p>Pg. 56<p>I think this part is interesting considering Tesla shareholders seem to have lost out on developing (x)AI (AGI?) internally.
How will this affect TSLA share holders? Will the value go up or down?
This is Elon trying to be the first trillionaire and make investors whole by suckering the public.
Am I reading this right?<p>SpaceX TAM - "Enterprise AI Applications" is 6T. The other 22T enterprise AI. This is a rocket company pretending it's a frontier AI lab.
Now that the paperwork is out, can anyone confirm this earlier report "Report: SpaceX IPO gives Musk unchecked power and forbids investor lawsuits":<p>* <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/report-spacex-ipo-gives-musk-unchecked-power-and-forbids-investor-lawsuits/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/report-spacex-ip...</a>
Remove Grok and it's a great business.<p>Remove AI and it's a good business.
wow x.ai is a literal money incinerator
Elon Musk owns 12.3% of Class A shares and 93.6% of Class B shares. Class B shares have 10x the voting power of class A shares. Overall Elon controls 85.1% of the voting power in the company. If Elon sells any of his Class B shares, they automatically convert into Class A shares.<p>Retail and institutional investors will have practically no say in the direction of the SpaceX.<p>> <i>Each share of Class A common stock will entitle its holder to one vote per share. Each share of Class B common stock will entitle its holder to 10 votes per share. Each share of Class B common stock will convert automatically into one share of Class A common stock upon a Transfer.</i>
The S&P 500 index criteria didn’t allow this sort of nonsense starting in 2017, but they relaxed the rule again to allow dual class listings to be included in the index in 2023.<p>Not looking forward to SpaceX.AI.Twitter’s eventual inclusion, I do not like founder controlled publicly traded companies.
"We do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future."<p>Sounds like 'never' to me.
Growth companies not paying dividends is normal and they're likely many years out from when they'd need to seriously consider it. I don't think thats a big deal.
Because dividends are considered failure for tech companies.
[flagged]
Is there any risk to SpaceX that the Musk brand pulls the market cap too far ahead now?<p>It's not a risk factor I see in the prospectus but seems plausible to me.<p>Just like with the AI company vesting, I imagine a scenario where a company seeds its own competition by realizing the monetary gains before the work is done. Maybe there's precedent in the dot com bubble. Certainly people were able to sell before the dip a la Cuban and broadcast.com. But I'm thinking more more specifically inducing competitive space ventures.
Who is gonna buy at the IPO and why or why not? (Assumes you read the S1).<p>I did. I’m not buying. lol I won’t get an allocation but I also want to see where this shakes out. So in 6 months time if starlink is the gem that people say then sure.<p>I think he finds a way to trade inflated SpaceX stock to o buy Tesla and call it a day.
> For instance, Mr. Musk currently serves as Technoking and Chief Executive Officer of Tesla<p>Sorry, what?
Perhaps related:<p>* "SpaceX IPO Scandal": <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47388640">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47388640</a><p>* "SpaceX and OpenAI: The Mega IPO Grift": <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47648226">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47648226</a>
Very surprised to see SpaceX valued higher than OpenAI.
So, a significant amount of self-dealing, and Elon Musk has an 85.1% voting share in the company. That sounds like a really great thing. There is no sarcasm in that previous statement. None at all.
One of the major reasons for fans of space exploration to be concerned about all this was the dilution of control that seemed inherent in an IPO, but since that seems to be fixed, I don't hate the idea any more.
[flagged]