• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Elon Musk - the world's "greatest" spiv?

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,186
Location
LBK
and the ludicrous idea of "putting datacentres in space", which nobody seems to have stopped to consider whether it's sensible.

I wait to see how those machines will be cooled, or how the components will be serviced when they fail (or likely not, and just gradually left to die and route around the dead components, such death accelerated by them spending their operational life sweltering in their own heat). Vanity.
Putting a data centre in space seems like one of the best places for it. No NIMBYs to object, huge solar power resources, and it's the coldest place we know.

I'm very cynical about early AI use and the sheer amount of slop that is being produced but quite bullish about the long term future of it. Its development in the 2020s will be seen in 500 years as the beginning of a revolution, and countless future developments will likely be made possible by the development of powerful AIs.

You could spend days rattling off all the negative consequences of the Industrial Revolution if you wanted, but none of us would ever go back to living in an agrarian peasant society.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SargeNpton

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
1,704
Putting a data centre in space seems like one of the best places for it. No NIMBYs to object, huge solar power resources, and it's the coldest place we know.
It may be cold, but the lack of an atmosphere means that there will be no transfer of heat by either conduction or convection from the data centre into the void.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,186
Location
LBK
It may be cold, but the lack of an atmosphere means that there will be no transfer of heat by either conduction or convection from the data centre into the void.
That's why the proposal is that it will use radiation.

There is no fatal cooling problem with AI data centres in space. You just need a very large radiative surface at the correct angle, which is difficult but not impossible.
 

devon_belle

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2022
Messages
642
Location
Surrey
The power, cooling, and cosmic radiation problems can probably be overcome. You'd need a tremendous amount of solar panels, radiators, communications equipment, and potentially shielding from energetic particles. Then hope the plasma environment agrees with your computer hardware. Then comes the question of maintenance and disposal... To me it all seems to be very much more expensive than worth it. Those costs would be passed onto consumers which would further squeeze the "profitability" of these AI services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

There is no fatal cooling problem with AI data centres in space. You just need a very large radiative surface at the correct angle, which is difficult but not impossible.
This is true. As you wouldn't need to maintain the server farm at human-habitable temperatures, radiative cooling becomes much more effective. Such radiators can emit from both sides with greater total power out than you can get in from solar panels, per unit area. Mass will always be a consideration though, and presumably extra heat pumps would be needed to channel the heat away from the servers.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,795
Location
Epsom
The power, cooling, and cosmic radiation problems can probably be overcome. You'd need a tremendous amount of solar panels, radiators, communications equipment, and potentially shielding from energetic particles. Then hope the plasma environment agrees with your computer hardware. Then comes the question of maintenance and disposal... To me it all seems to be very much more expensive than worth it. Those costs would be passed onto consumers which would further squeeze the "profitability" of these AI services.
...not forgetting the chances of meteor strikes ruining it. It wouldn't take more than a small number of micrometeorite strikes in the right place to completely disable the whole thing. The bigger it is, the greater the chances of being hit.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,181
Location
Edinburgh/ Chester le Street
This level of "wealth" is several times the amount one could possibly ever spend in their lifetime. All the super-rich want at this point is to win a massive willy-waving contest.

They could all end world hunger and poverty forever with a click of their fingers, that they don't tells you all you need to know about every single one of them, they're only interested in the progress of the human race so that they can make more and more money out of them, they're all despicable people.

Its development in the 2020s will be seen in 500 years as the beginning of a revolution, and countless future developments will likely be made possible by the development of powerful AIs.

Or we could end up like Terminator 2
 

Sorcerer

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2022
Messages
2,043
Location
Liverpool
They could all end world hunger and poverty forever with a click of their fingers, that they don't tells you all you need to know about every single one of them, they're only interested in the progress of the human race so that they can make more and more money out of them, they're all despicable people.
I despise Elon as much as the next guy, but he alone couldn't end world hunger and poverty with a click of his fingers. To solve those issues you would need more than to just throw money at them, and Elon's wealth isn't liquid; his trillionaire status is tied to a portfolio of companies and assets that could theoretically tank in value and render him broke. Musk is a reprehensible character in many ways, but not solving world hunger or poverty isn't one of them.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
Or we could end up like Terminator 2

AI is being sold to us under false pretences. In many ways it really isn't that intelligent, so I think the 'real' Skynet would struggle to take control of the world and kill us all.

I suppose it could make us all unproductive slobs that destroy ourselves but wasting 23 hours a day watching AI slop videos on TikTok though. Not quite the same as T2!
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,385
Location
Taunton or Kent
While not a long enough timeframe yet to set a trend, SpaceX and by default Musk's valuations took a notable hit yesterday:


Key Facts​

Shares of SpaceX plunged 16.4% on Monday to under $155 as the stock fell below its debut close of $160.
SpaceX’s stock has sunk more than 31% since hitting a peak of $225.64 on June 16, dropping Musk’s estimated net worth from an all-time high of $1.45 trillion to just under $1.1 trillion Monday.
Monday’s drop alone wiped out more than $152 billion from Musk’s net worth, according to Forbes estimates.
Musk holds a roughly 38% stake in SpaceX, including 4.8 billion shares and an additional 350 million stock options with an exercise price of $8.40 per share.
A further decline followed MSCI—one of the world’s largest stock market index providers—reportedly awarding SpaceX a CCC rating, its lowest on a seven-tier sustainability scale, declaring the company was “lagging its industry” because of exposure to and management of “significant” environmental, social and governance risks.
SpaceX also disclosed on Monday it would start issuing bonds to raise funds to refinance a short-term loan without diluting existing shareholders.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
While not a long enough timeframe yet to set a trend, SpaceX and by default Musk's valuations took a notable hit yesterday:


I wonder how many people realised they weren't investing in rockets and building cities on the moon, but rather AI data centres and other stuff that is almost certainly never going to make a profit?
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,617
Location
Gwynedd
I wonder how many people realised they weren't investing in rockets and building cities on the moon, but rather AI data centres and other stuff that is almost certainly never going to make a profit?
Not that I want to defend Musk much, but these are distinct and different companies. People investing in SpaceX are investing in rockets, not X. If they can't tell the difference, they should leave their investment decisions to fund managers.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
Not that I want to defend Musk much, but these are distinct and different companies. People investing in SpaceX are investing in rockets, not X. If they can't tell the difference, they should leave their investment decisions to fund managers.

No, SpaceX is shifting focus from things like satellite launches to AI and data centres, including a laughable plan to have orbiting data centres as soon as by 2028.

The prospectus also talks of establishing a lunar economy and transporting humans and cargo to the Moon and Mars. Quote: "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."

And SpaceX spent almost $1bn buying Cybertrucks from Tesla because, well, who else was going to?

People are soon going to realise just how little of what SpaceX claims is going to happen is going to happen.

I get there's confusion between Tesla and X (and xAI) but I think that's very deliberate to confuse investors, and also as a way to shift money around and further confuse (and possibly commit offences that Elon is banking on getting away with under the Trump Government).

By the way, I didn't invest. ;)
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,428
Not that I want to defend Musk much, but these are distinct and different companies. People investing in SpaceX are investing in rockets, not X. If they can't tell the difference, they should leave their investment decisions to fund managers.
Did you miss the bit where xAI bought Twitter, and then got bought by SpaceX? They're all the same company now.

Wikipedia summarises it as
X Corp. is an American technology company headquartered in Bastrop, Texas. Established by Elon Musk in 2023 as the successor to Twitter, Inc., it is a wholly owned subsidiary of xAI since March 28, 2025, which is itself a subsidiary of SpaceX since February 2, 2026.

Anyone investing in SpaceX is investing in X / Grok / AI data-centres in space / propping up Tesla as well as rockets.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,385
Location
Taunton or Kent
Did you miss the bit where xAI bought Twitter, and then got bought by SpaceX? They're all the same company now.

Wikipedia summarises it as


Anyone investing in SpaceX is investing in X / Grok / AI data-centres in space / propping up Tesla as well as rockets.
There is also talk of SpaceX buying Tesla at some point as well, all to try and keep the "pumping" operation going.
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,617
Location
Gwynedd
Did you miss the bit where xAI bought Twitter, and then got bought by SpaceX? They're all the same company now.
No, I didn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

No, SpaceX is shifting focus from things like satellite launches to AI and data centres, including a laughable plan to have orbiting data centres as soon as by 2028.

The prospectus also talks of establishing a lunar economy and transporting humans and cargo to the Moon and Mars. Quote: "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."

And SpaceX spent almost $1bn buying Cybertrucks from Tesla because, well, who else was going to?

People are soon going to realise just how little of what SpaceX claims is going to happen is going to happen.
So, SpaceX is a likely successful company operating in a very niche space.

Cybertrucks are ugly and not road legal in the UK, but Tsla is a hugely successful company here.

Part of the reason Musk manages to ride on his success is because people just deride his company's achievements.
I get there's confusion between Tesla and X (and xAI) but I think that's very deliberate to confuse investors, and also as a way to shift money around and further confuse (and possibly commit offences that Elon is banking on getting away with under the Trump Government).

By the way, I didn't invest. ;)
Maybe it is. But any investor should do their due diligence. I don';t invest in any of Musk's products because I think he's unhinged and could bring down the valuation of any of his companies massively by just another session smoking weed with Joe Rogan. But that's the sort of DD I've done and any competent investor would do. If someobody is confused by the difference of SpaceX and Tesla, they shouldn't be buying individual stocks, and should leave such decisions to fund managers, as probably 99.9% of the UK population do.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
I don';t invest in any of Musk's products because I think he's unhinged and could bring down the valuation of any of his companies massively by just another session smoking weed with Joe Rogan.

Hell, that's probably why so many people DO invest in Musk. That's part of his image and people think he's a major disruptor that is changing the world and helping us reach the stars.

As against a snake oil salesman who goes from grift to the next.

Sure, he's had many achievements.. the main ones being that he's able to get people to throw money at him and also create a persona that is far from reality. Beyond that, he didn't invent or build the things he sells. If he wasn't there, they'd probably all do better.

Indeed, when he virtually disappeared to try his political career, I am sure almost all staff were relieved that he wasn't around every day to shout at them and fire people for no good reason because he was in a mood (aka high).

Obviously nobody should take what I've written as financial advice and use it to form an opinion on whether to invest in any of his ventures.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,385
Location
Taunton or Kent
No longer a trillionaire for now (though still $957bn):


Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk lost his trillionaire status on Tuesday, less than two weeks after becoming the first person to achieve it following SpaceX's public debut, according to data from Bloomberg.

The Bloomberg Billionaires Index - updated daily at 17:30 in New York (22:30 BST) - valued his fortune at $957bn (£727bn) on Tuesday, down from the $1.11tn valuation less than 14 days ago.

The reversal followed a sharp retreat in SpaceX and Tesla shares as technology stocks broadly tumbled, fuelled by growing doubts over the long-term profitability of artificial intelligence.

Despite the loss, Musk remains the world's richest person, and his wealth still dwarfs that of his nearest rivals.

The billionaire originally made history on 12 June with the highly anticipated public market debut of his rocket company, SpaceX, on the Nasdaq exchange.

The blockbuster initial public offering (IPO) was priced at $135 per share and opened at $150 when it began trading.

The debut valued the rocket and satellite giant at more than $1.77 trillion. Because Musk owned roughly 42% of SpaceX, the listing instantly propelled his paper fortune past the $1 trillion mark.

By 16 June, surging investor enthusiasm drove SpaceX shares to a peak of $225.64, pushing Musk's total net worth to a peak of $1.32 trillion.

However, the market rally did not last.

Concerns over capital spending, artificial intelligence infrastructure costs, and stubborn interest rates triggered a widespread tech sell-off and hit high-flying technology giants such as Nvidia, Intel, and AMD, particularly hard.

But SpaceX shares bore the brunt of the correction, plunging more than 30% from their mid-June peak to trade around $156.

On a single turbulent Monday, 22 June, a 16% single-day drop erased an estimated $240 billion from Musk's personal balance sheet.

Concurrently, shares of his electric vehicle venture, Tesla, slid nearly 6% just a day later, compounding the financial damage. Musk owned about 12% of Tesla's outstanding shares.



Musk's trillionaire status is uniquely vulnerable due to the extreme concentration of his wealth. Unlike traditional billionaires with diversified portfolios, his fortune is almost entirely tied to equity in just two companies: SpaceX, which represents nearly 80% of his total net worth, and Tesla.

Market analysts note that post-IPO volatility is entirely standard for highly valued growth firms, though the scale of the movement reflects a deeper tug-of-war between hype and reality.

"For a stock like SpaceX, a lot of decision making might have been emotional and based on the anticipation of huge leaps forward in space exploration and utilisation, but investing should be something treated with clear eyes and patience, even when such huge numbers are involved," said Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell.

With restrictions lifting in late July that will allow company insiders to finally sell their shares in stages, market pressure may continue.

However, because a modest 6% recovery in SpaceX stock would restore his 13-figure status, Musk may simply become the world's first recurring trillionaire.
 

Lucan

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2018
Messages
1,246
Location
Wales
People investing in SpaceX are investing in rockets, not X. If they can't tell the difference, they should leave their investment decisions to fund managers.
More prosaically, a lot (most?) of that money from the IPO is going straight into paying off some of SpaceX's existing colossal debts. SpaceX as a company is currently losing about $1 billion per month, mostly it seems on trying to develop Musk's vanity Starship, the giant rocket that is supposed to carry the Mars colonists, but keeps blowing up and has not reached earth orbit yet. The only division of SpaceX making some money is Starlink, the communications satellite network. Almost immediately after the IPO sale, SpaceX went to selling company bonds because it needs the money so fast.

As for leaving it to fund managers, Musk pulled strings to get SpaceX fast-track listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange (as SPCX), by-passing the usual probation period in which among other things a profit must be shown. Obviously SPCX immediately joined the top valued companies in nominal value, and because of that numerous investment funds were obliged by the rules to buy into the SPCX IPO and to hold its shares. Sounds crazy, but forget any picture you have of level-headed fund managers controlling their investments - much of it is out of their hands. Many Americans are alarmed that their pension funds have now been sucked into SpaceX in this way.

This explains the NASDAQ aspect :

It'll be the biggest IPO in Wall Street history — but the real shock isn’t the size, it’s the story Elon Musk is selling. A $1.75 trillion valuation riding on hype and rule‑bending that could send SpaceX stock into your 401k. And big news: Major indexes like Nasdaq are changing their rules for SpaceX. #dwbusiness
0:50
50 seconds
Major indexes like NASDAQ are changing their rules to fasttrack the company's entry to their index.
0:57
57 seconds
The whole process of literally SpaceX goes to NASDAQ, asks them to change the
1:04
1 minute, 4 seconds
rules of the index in exchange for getting the IPO listing. That is dirty pool.
1:11
1 minute, 11 seconds
Companies would have to prove profitability or have their market value determined before joining such major indexes. But that's not the case
1:19
1 minute, 19 seconds
anymore. And that's how shares in SpaceX could end up being part of ETFs or even your 401k retirement fund.
1:26
1 minute, 26 seconds
It may not be illegal, but it is absolutely unethical.
1:30
1 minute, 30 seconds
Now, analysts say this gives ordinary savers fast access to big private companies. Critics say it exposes people
1:37
1 minute, 37 seconds
to a new stock before we've determined its worth.
1:40
1 minute, 40 seconds
This is very explicitly taking money from the public markets and putting it in the pockets of insiders. Insiders seem to be driving this IPO with Musk at the wheel.
1:50
1 minute, 50 seconds
The reason it's getting all of the attention is just the pure Elon Musk hype machine. I mean, that's what it is.
1:55
1 minute, 55 seconds
But the company going public doesn't mean it'll weaken his position. He owns roughly 40% of the company's equity capital and 80% of voting rights.
2:04
2 minutes, 4 seconds
You have to believe that somehow they're going to pivot and become a massive AI company. You have to somehow believe that they're going to acquire Tesla
2:12
2 minutes, 12 seconds
cheap and become the world's largest humanoid robotics company and the world's largest self-driving car company. None of those things are true....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,385
Location
Taunton or Kent
SpaceX's IPO price has now dropped below its initial listing price:


SpaceX on Wednesday slipped below its listing price of $135 per share, extending a slide that has erased more than $1tn from the value of Elon Musk’s conglomerate since the peak shortly after its record IPO. Shares in SpaceX hit an intraday high of $225 in mid-June, pushing the market capitalisation of Musk’s lossmaking company above Amazon’s in the days after it raised $86bn at a valuation above $2tn in the world’s biggest IPO. But the shares have since slipped 40 per cent, slashing the value of Musk’s 42 per cent stake to about $760bn from $1.2tn over the same period. SpaceX’s bonds issued in late June have also sold off sharply.

What will be interesting is how the value responds as the lockup period starts unwinding, with the first phase of share sales in early August.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,841
Location
UK
Elon can fix this by making some new bold claims about what SpaceX is going to achieve by 'next year'. Something something robots something rockets something something AI.
 

Lucan

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2018
Messages
1,246
Location
Wales
SpaceX share price has already fallen below its opening price and well below what most retail (small time) investors paid for it. I guess they are all now getting a morning-after feeling, or buyers remorse. As a consequence, Musk is no longer a trillionaire, so cue the sobbing violins.
 

SargeNpton

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
1,704
Paraphrased from the latest edition of Private Eye, so no link...

When Musk bought Twitter he said he would increase its ad revenue.

In the second quarter of 2022 (just before he took control), revenue was $1.08 billion.

For the same period this year it's $376 million. A drop of around two thirds.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,186
Location
LBK
Imagine nobody wants to place ads in the horrible club a lot of people just left!
 

styles

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
4,617
Location
Gwynedd
Paraphrased from the latest edition of Private Eye, so no link...

When Musk bought Twitter he said he would increase its ad revenue.

In the second quarter of 2022 (just before he took control), revenue was $1.08 billion.

For the same period this year it's $376 million. A drop of around two thirds.
Hardly surprising.

I mean the guy tried to sue Lego because they pulled their ads. Who the F sues Lego?
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,735
Location
Newport
Paraphrased from the latest edition of Private Eye, so no link...

When Musk bought Twitter he said he would increase its ad revenue.

In the second quarter of 2022 (just before he took control), revenue was $1.08 billion.

For the same period this year it's $376 million. A drop of around two thirds.
It does seem that Musk got his DOGE and Twitter priorities mixed up. Tragic.
 

Top