> Musk's margin on Twitter from being called by his investors,

Primary and largest investors in X are: Elon Musk, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Larry Ellison, Jack Dorsey.

I don't know that you need to worry about their financial well-being or that they are getting a raw deal.

I think people are more concerned about SpaceX getting the raw deal here.

And specifically that if the music is about to stop SpaceX has an implicit government backstop

It doesn't have to; the government's rescue of GM in 2008 killed a bunch of brands that they owned.

But given the current administration, I don't have a lot of faith in the government looking out for anyone else's interests here.

And TARP destroyed 4 of the 5 largest investment banks in the US, but it still left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths

Starlink is about to get billions and billions from the BEAD program, on top of this.

You’re really asking whether anyone at a private company is publicly speaking up against the famously emotional and vindictive owner?

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

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

Yeah, the financial well-being of those investors is not what people are worried about here

Whoa, I had to do a double-take on the Dorsey mention -- like, didn't he take the money and run while laughing at the folks that overpaid? But it seems he's retained a 2.4% ownership stake in Twitter/X, according to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dorsey#Twitter

Still, don't make the mistake I did, which was to read the above comment to mean "he put more money in at the time of the buyout", since he was called an "investor in X".