The only source for that current valuation is Musk himself, whose source was sticking his finger up his ass and picking a number that sounded low enough to motivate his few remaining employees to make it higher.

You think he bought it as an investment? Because he thought it was undervalued? Like when he started SpaceX because he thought it was the best way to multiply his PayPal money?

It doesn't matter what his plan was. A company that loses half its value in five months is not, in most cases, a company on a path to success.

It's not impossible to turn that around. But odds aren't in favor.

You say Twitter skeptics are just saying what they want to be true. What would you think if someone told you that their favorite social media site had lost half its value in five months but they were sure it was gonna turn around soon? Would that seem likely to someone without an emotional investment?

I think you don’t know what his plan was. And I also disagree with your implicit definition of value.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what his plan was. And I wasn't "implying" anything, I'm explicitly talking about money.

Running a social media site costs. Not even Musk has the liquid capital to keep it afloat as a public service at this loss rate. Either he comes up with a radical new income stream, or he'll have to shut it down or sell it. How virtuous his plans are, how much cultural value Twitter has, these things are irrelevant. A car won't go without gas.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

> A company that loses half its value in five months is not, in most cases, a company on a path to success.

I'd venture that it's probably lost a lot more than half of its brand value as well.