zlacker

> SpaceX getting the raw deal here.

Have they complained?

>>andsoi+(OP)
You’re really asking whether anyone at a private company is publicly speaking up against the famously emotional and vindictive owner?

>>acdha+x1
Yes. People are saying they’re worried that the poor private investors of SpaceX are getting the short end of the stick.

That seems like misplaced concerned for an investor class that really aren’t suffering.

>>andsoi+e3
Well, no, the worry is that xAI's bondholders, who are also Twitter's bondholders, will be indemnified from any loss on those bonds at public expense because they are now also SpaceX bondholders and SpaceX is a national security interest of the US.

>>andsoi+e3
This thread specifically excluded the big investors, but they too have nothing but loss popping the bubble: Musk has been talking up the value of their investment. If they criticize in public, they’re just costing themselves money — much safer to sell and walk away.

>>andsoi+e3
I think unsavory business practices actually affect approximately everyone, even those not directly connected to any one particular instance of unsavory business practices.

Culture exists, after all.

>>andsoi+(OP)
Well this was just announced, and I'll be surprised if nobody gripes about a $2T dilution of their equity.

>>bandra+P3
> bonds at public expense because they are now also SpaceX bondholders and SpaceX is a national security interest of the US.

If our elected officials have done a poor job diversifying risk by not just depending on one single supplied, they are to blame and we should hold them accountable.

But, is that even the case?