with any luck he ends up filing for bankruptcy and retiring somewhere.
pure grifter that became a billionaire from government subsidies.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
pure grifter that became a billionaire from government subsidies.
Because they were key to its founding, this isn't some alien concept that has only ever occurred at Tesla.
Two people want to do X, another person wants to do X too, they're connected with each other, a legal entity already exists which the first two incorporated but not much has actually been done yet (they need funding for that for one), few months later they all join together with shared ownership of that legal entity.
There's no need to scrap the existing legal entity and then set up a completely new one just because they're teaming up and all want to be called co-founders, that's totally arbitrary, you can have someone called a co-founder when things are still embryonic and they're playing a key role.
People are acting as though there was some tangible, up-and-running car company already that he just bought into, they didn't even have a product back then, just a shared interest in EVs.
There's no "conjecture" you just had your facts backwards; you claimed he was a founder by "By post-humorous court order." but that's incorrect; he was already a co-founder someone (another co-founder) went to court to try and get a declaration that he wasn't a founder and failed.
They all had a "vision" to create an electric vehicle, that's why they worked together!
Last edited:
Source pls
Soldato
i think we all have to accept that none of us will ever know the truth to elon being a true founder or now. legally he has found a way to get himself listed as founded. perhaps because it's correct and true, or because he has lots of money. what we do know is he wasn't there from day 1, but was there very early on. anything more is pointless discussion on this subject that will never have an end conclusion.
This is muddled, he was already listed as a founder, the court case was to try and get a declaration that he wasn't and that failed.
I'm not sure what you even mean by "none of us will ever know the truth to Elon being a true founder"? This has already been successfully argued in court.
What do you mean by a "true founder"?
Last edited:
He self-proclaimed himself as co-founder, despite only being invited to the party because he had cash burning a hole in his pocket from PayPal. What was argued in court was different. It was arguing whether the two original guys were the only ones allowed to use the phrase.
True founder is a synonym for "the original individuals who set the whole thing up", but Musky has muddied the water.
He was one of the individuals who set the whole thing up, without him they'd be nowhere at all, they didn't even have a product. Those two guys who registered the company/entity "SRA" (now known as Tesla, the name Elon chose) are rather irrelevant in comparison to the contributions of not just Musk but the other two co-founders too.
He's not muddied anything, again it's the opposite, this case that had no merit is what has muddled things for you. That all founders of a new venture joined together a few months apart or weren't all present when the legal entity was set up doesn't mean they can't all be co-founders, especially when it was still super early when they joined, no product, no real IP yet and they made significant contributions.
Last edited:
They needed money and Musk had it. Unless you think it is some kind of one-in-a-gazillion opportunity where an EV enthusiast also has millions to chuck around? The vision for Tesla was already mature enough that capital was provided.
Soldato
Founder in the US isnt a legal thing its basically a bragging thing
Musk wasn't a genuine founder. But the term is used somewhat loosely and as such often a company founded many years before and having basically done nothing will allow the early VC or funders to become founders.
Many will have the founders as the people involved when it actually started doing something, even if the true founders (often performing this activity in a garage, or bar etc) may take some offence at that later additions then tend to bite their tongues to actually get the business moving
Musk wasn't a genuine founder. But the term is used somewhat loosely and as such often a company founded many years before and having basically done nothing will allow the early VC or funders to become founders.
Many will have the founders as the people involved when it actually started doing something, even if the true founders (often performing this activity in a garage, or bar etc) may take some offence at that later additions then tend to bite their tongues to actually get the business moving
"The vision" you're just full of BS, you got your previous claim completely backwards as you saw for yourself from the source you demanded now you're coming out with some claim about a "vision", they all had a general vision to form an EV company, that's why they teamed up.
Yes, he was. That a company had been incorporated already is completely moot here, you should know better than that tbh.
Musk took a ride in a tZero after JB Straubel told him about it, when Elon learned that the guy who built the tZero wasn't going to produce it commercially he asked if he minded if he tried to do so... and that's when he was put in contact with the guys at "SRA" who were looking to do the same... ergo they teamed up.
That "SRA" was already registered as a company with that "vision" (as dlockers puts it) is kinda moot, here we have those two (then three) individuals and their company set up ready to pursue the same goal as Musk and Straubel so they came together to pursue that goal and all five of them are considered to be co-founders.
If Elon had registered a new company "Tesla" with Straubel and asked the other three from "SRA" to join that instead would that make a huge difference? It's a technicality, five guys got together and founded a car company, there wasn't some existing product or IP he's buying into there, they didn't even have the name Tesla.
Nor was he some passive early investor, he wasn't a full-time employee initially but he had significant input into the very first product they produced; the roadster.
Last edited:
"Eberhard and Tarpenning also said they came up with the idea of basing the Roadster on an existing sports car—the Lotus Elise. While they felt pretty confident that their Silicon Valley knowledge would cover the motors, batteries, and control systems, they had no experience with other aspects of automotive engineering, Tarpenning said. They pitched the idea to Lotus at the Los Angeles auto show.
The next step was to find funding. AC Propulsion had failed to convince Musk, but Eberhard and Tarpenning used their shared love of space exploration (they had previously met Musk at a Mars Society conference) as a conversation starter.
"We're pitching this to someone who is actually trying to make rocket ships," Tarpenning said.
In April 2004, Musk invested $6.35 million of Tesla's $6.5 million Series A funding round, and became the company's second chairman of the board."
----------
They literally went to Musk cause he had money and they already had a much more viable idea than SC who had pitched for his money previously.
Next you'll say the playboy girls smashed Hugh because of his personality.
Edit: I also like where you make fun of my vision statement then use it to support an argument elsewhere. GJ
Last edited:
And because he was literally put in contact with them as he was looking to found an EV company too.
What exactly are you even trying to argue here - how does Elon had money negate that he's a co-founder?
More to the point, you'd never have even heard of "Tesla" or rather "SRA" as he was fundamental to it even as Chairman and the original CEO was asked to step down in 2007. It would have likely just been some company that made a different attempt at a modified Lotus then failed.
Last edited:
They already knew him. They went to him because he had money. When they thought he was rocket man, not EV man.
Lots of people are integral to the success of companies. Doesn't mean they are considered co-founders, even if they self-proclaim it.
Soldato
How does this confirm he is a founder and not just 99 percent responsible for the success of tesla
Last edited:
Elon Musk said Tesla wouldn't exist without a little-known electric convertible called the tZero. Here's how the prototype car led to the formation of Tesla and paved the way for electric vehicles.
The tZero, made by a company called AC Propulsion, led directly to the formation of Tesla and its first car, the Roadster.
www.businessinsider.com
they knew who he was but the point was that Musk was looking to found an EV company and was put in contact with those three... so Musk, those three and Straubel are the founders.
You've missed the point re: him also being integral to the company (he was integral to the founding of the company) the point was that there wasn't a product or IP, it was embryonic... that's why they can all be considered cofounders.
It's not like some software founders having an MVP already up and running then someone later asking for "co-founder" status, there was no product or IP at the stage at which those 5 came together so it's perfectly reasonable for all five to be co-founders.
Last edited:
The line you quoted doesn't do that, the arguments put forth in previous posts do though.
Soldato
Amazing something so simple can be argued to death 
- Status