Whether good or bad, the deal was the deal, and the terms of it were fulfilled. I personally am not so fond of Musk suffering from Twitter brain worms (he's neither the first nor will be the last to acquire it) but that is separate and apart from the pay issue.

Audience capture: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture or perhaps more accurately criticism capture: https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/criticism-capture-is-more-d... is a problem for many people who become media people.

Not if the deal was fraudulent.

According to the verdict it wasn't a real negotiation.

Like politicians when they raise their payment.

Sure, deal is a deal - but from what I understand, the root problem is that the board that agreed on the deal had a bunch of people that were too close to Musk?

Say you're the CEO of some corporation XYZ, and you're best buddies with a majority of the board of directors.

You then suggest that if you can hit a list of goals, you'll get the option to purchase a huge number of stocks, at a deep, deep discount.

You - the CEO - will make a ton of money, while other shareholders will lose money due to dilution.

So this begs the question, who must the board of directors look out for. The CEO, or the other shareholders? And if a majority of the board is buddies with the CEO, introducing bias to the picture, should the deal have been voided?

If you're some investor that bought XYZ stock years ago, and it 10x'ed since then - a little dilution isn't going to hurt your investment much. If you're a shareholder that bought a stock today, and tomorrow it is worth less due to dilution, and the possibility of the CEO dumping stocks, that's another thing.

Is that a per-year pay package? Or does it cover a number of years?

Honest question. As that fairly basic parameter does not seem to be included in the main media articles linked. And I'm not-at-all familiar with corporate practices.

It's a one-time performance based compensation package split into multiple tranches, with options worth 1% of stock being provided as payment for each one, with up to 12 in total.

I mean, why not ?

These are people that do believe in what he says, and he is throwing out big numbers - he just said that Autonomous driving & Optimus can lead to >30 TRILLION $ valuation for Tesla.

How long until he claims Tesla is worth a quadrillion dollars? I'd say 5 years.

If he didn't have so much power this would be hilarious, but he's a real threat.

That's disappointing.

Not that it matters any, but this means that the odds of me ever buying Tesla anything has fallen from "very low" to "zero".

What other purchasing decisions do you make based on executive compensation schemes? It seems like a very unique way of selected products.

This would be a first. The problem I have with it is that it's just too much. I can live with a relatively small percentage of the money I spend with a company going to an executive that I think is a harmful force, but this would represent a large percentage of the money I'd spend going to one. Too much to be able to ignore.

You realise this is a stock based compensation and their number 1 goal is to make cars more affordable?

I make almost all of purchasing decisions based on principles to the best that I can.

Rewarding a Nazi sympathizing sexist pig who's clearly driving (another) pump and dump is a great reason not to give a company my money.

Any questions?

Questions? I have many. Where do you get the majority of your news?

We don't engage in flaming here, so I'll leave it at that.

Musk cries over losing this customer with $56 billion.

Of course Musk doesn't care. And I don't care if he does or not.

Why would you even care so much about tesla? there are hundreds of battery cars to choose from. It's not even like it has an iconic design or sth

I don't really care about Tesla. I care about not contributing to increasing the wealth (and thus power) of the likes of Musk.