Tyler Crowe

So, hey, but that's the point of S1s is we're trying to be lofty.

We're trying to be ambitious here.

And, you know, of things like that, yeah, I can poke holes into that pretty easy.

But as an investor, above anything else, this was the thing that

got me the most and it was what i see is a corporate structure and an executive payment structure that's and to be you know harsh here is completely agnostic

or potentially even working against investor outcomes and shareholder returns outside of Elon Musk.

The combination of it, like this dual class share that they have in a compensation structure that's extremely dilutive to investors, I don't think it really strikes me as a business that wants to work necessarily for its shareholders.

I know I'm being pretty controversial here when I say this, but let's start with this market cap goal that is put out there.

I think it's like a billion shares of class B shares.

Raising market cap,

doesn't always necessarily mean raising the share price.

Like we mentioned the cursor deal, that's $60 billion that's probably going to be issued shares.

Perhaps there's some cash issued shares, but that's going to raise market cap and could have zero impact on actual price of the stock.

There could be other factors

acquisitions that happen in the future that you pay for with stock that may not affect the price.

There are lots of ways that you can increase the market cap of a company and have basically a flat share price.

So keep that in mind when you hear market cap based goals for the executive.

And at the same time, we could say like, oh, but if we dilute the company with all these extra shares, Elon Musk is going to be diluted as well.

Yes and no, because so much of that package is tied to growing that market cap, and his interest would grow as well.

At the same time, he has super majority voting shares.