The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

[unwashed potato!]

Elon Musk plans to rebrand Twitter as 'X' — an idea that harkens back to the CEO's early days when he was ousted from PayPal

Elon Musk announced Saturday that he plans to rebrand Twitter as 'X.' The new name is a full-circle moment harkening back to the CEO's PayPal days.

www.businessinsider.com

Musk said "i joined Tesla after the 2 founders asked me to join due to the huge money i had".

If Elon said it, and it's written by a blog post on Telsa's own website, it must be true

 

[unwashed potato!]

Amazing something so simple can be argued to death

this. it's nothing anyone can know for sure so it's a pointless argument now that's been argued before and got to the same conclusion.

Elon is responsible for where Tesla is now. whether he was founder or not is irrelevant as he was brought in early enough and been there long enough. at worst he's like the step-dad of Tesla.

 

[Trusty]

this. it's nothing anyone can know for sure so it's a pointless argument now that's been argued before and got to the same conclusion.

Elon is responsible for where Tesla is now. whether he was founder or not is irrelevant as he was brought in early enough and been there long enough. at worst he's like the step-dad of Tesla.

He's a founder ffs. 9 months is nothing in the start up world, especially when there is no working product.

 

[dowie]

this. it's nothing anyone can know for sure

Well it is, it was literally argued in court. Or you can just look at the facts re: what happened and it's pretty clear why all five are considered cofounders.

 

[dlockers]

He's a founder ffs. 9 months is nothing in the start up world, especially when there is no working product.

9 months from incorporation

(he was integral to the founding of the company)

Define founding. Maybe thats where you are so confidently putting together a word salad and how the case got thrown out.

 

[unwashed potato!]

He's a founder ffs. 9 months is nothing in the start up world, especially when there is no working product.

it's long enough that it can be argued he's not a true founder, but it's pointless. what difference does it make to you or more in whatever argument gets put forth whether he's the original founder, or 99% responsible for the success?

 

[dlockers]

Other VCs listening in closely to claim themselves as founders too

 

[dowie]

9 months from incorporation

So if they'd closed down SRA set up a new legal entity you'd be happy that all 5 are cofounders then? (Even though that would have made no material difference and would be a pointless exercise.) You think some technicality re: when a legal entity was formed by whom matters here rather than any tangible details re: what had actually been done at that point and what the contributions were of the people involved?

Define founding. Maybe thats where you are so confidently putting together a word salad and how the case got thrown out.

Organizational founder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The language of securities regulation in the United States considers co-founders to be "promoters" under Regulation D. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's definition of "Promoter" includes: (i) Any person who, acting alone or in conjunction with one or more other persons, directly or indirectly takes initiative in founding and organizing the business or enterprise of an issuer;[2] however, not every promoter is a co-founder. In fact, there is no formal, legal definition of what makes someone a co-founder.[3][4] The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company. When there is no definitive agreement, like a shareholders' agreement, disputes about who the co-founders are, can arise.

 

[Roar87]

Founding:

1. involved in establishing or originating an institution or organization.
   "the three founding partners"

I think Elon would fit the definition of a founder of Tesla. Obviously he was involved in establishing the organisation from very early on, it doesn't really matter that he wasn't involved in the literal first iteration of the "company" from day 1 when a piece of paper was signed. It's kind of like saying someone isn't a founder of a Town because prior to them showing up and helping build the first house, 2 blokes had been sat around a camp fire for a week talking about how it would be a good idea to build a town there.

 

[dowie]

it's long enough that it can be argued he's not a true founder

Not successfully it can't someone literally tried that in court and it was rejected.

 

[Trusty]

9 months from incorporation

it's long enough that it can be argued he's not a true founder, but it's pointless. what difference does it make to you or more in whatever argument gets put forth whether he's the original founder, or 99% responsible for the success?

There was no Tesla car. Musk is one of the co-founders of the Tesla car. There really isn't anymore to it.

 

[dlockers]

In fact, there is no formal, legal definition of what makes someone a co-founder.[3][4]

/thread. Musk isn't a cofounder in my eyes.

The court case is something entirely different. Musk was describing himself as cofounder and the original cofounders got a bit cross and tried to stop him doing that. The case was thrown out because the word cofounder isn't well defined anyway.

 

[Trusty]

In fact, there is no formal, legal definition of what makes someone a co-founder.[3][4]

/thread. Musk isn't a cofounder in my eyes.

The court case is something entirely different. Musk was describing himself as cofounder and the original cofounders got a bit cross and tried to stop him doing that. The case was thrown out because the word cofounder isn't well defined anyway.

Because ideas don't make you founders of companies. Every man and his dog has a great idea. To go from nothing in value to potentially 250m, half a billion, multi billion takes a number of people doing stuff from design/engineering to finance and marketing. It's all those things that make a company.

 

[dlockers]

Because ideas don't make you founders of companies. Every man and his dog has a great idea. To go from nothing in value to potentially 250m, half a billion, multi billion takes a number of people doing stuff from design/engineering to finance and marketing. It's all those things that make a company.

lol. The original founders had enough idea that Musk bought into it (remember he was just money and bothered about space to this point).

 

[unwashed potato!]

To go from nothing in value to potentially 250m, half a billion, multi billion takes a number of people doing stuff from design/engineering to finance and marketing. It's all those things that make a company

And none of those are things automatically mean you're a founder.

 

[dowie]

Musk isn't a cofounder in my eyes.

The court case is something entirely different.

Right, so a court made it clear but dlockers who got things completely backward when he waded into this argument thinks otherwise but can't explain why.

So if they'd closed down SRA set up a new legal entity you'd be happy that all 5 are cofounders then?

That's the important thing in your mind right? An irrelevant technicality, if they'd gone through the pointless exercise of shutting down the company and starting a new one then you'd say all five were cofounders... even though that isn't required in startups for cofounder status. The fact that there wasn't any product or IP at that stage (the company hadn't even been formed for a year at that point) is rather more relevant.

 

[Trusty]

lol. The original founders had enough idea that Musk bought into it (remember he was just money and bothered about space to this point).

I'm was talking generally, in response to that particular post you just made. Which was a generalised post about founders.

And none of those are things automatically mean you're a founder.

I'm clearly talking about the people at the start of the journey, not some CFO that comes in 3 years down the line when company is shipping products.

 

[dowie]

lol. The original founders had enough idea that Musk bought into it (remember he was just money and bothered about space to this point).

He had the same idea so was put in contact with them... he literally asked the guy who made the tZero if he minded if he commercialised that EV idea and was put in touch with the SRA guys.

 

[dlockers]

Right, so a court made it clear but dlockers who got things completely backward when he waded into this argument thinks otherwise but can't explain why.

No - you are confused on how the court case played out. Musk was self-proclaiming as founder when he wasn't; he was just VC capital. By getting the case thrown out because the term co-founder is so poorly defined anyway (and ultimately Musk's controlling position made him the moderator on the decision anyway) it was thrown out. He effectively forced the right to call himself co-founder by stopping someone preventing him from doing that.

That's the important thing in your mind right? An irrelevant technicality, if they'd gone through the pointless exercise of shutting down the company and starting a new one then you'd say all five were cofounders...

Nope, that's you putting words in my mouth.

even though that isn't required in startups for cofounder status. The fact that there wasn't any product or IP at that stage (the company hadn't even been formed for a year at that point) is rather more relevant.

Why would Musk give them/their legal entity all this money if they had nothing? :S

 

[dlockers]

He had the same idea so was put in contact with them... he literally asked the guy who made the tZero if he minded if he commercialised that EV idea and was put in touch with the SRA guys.

The guys that actually founded Tesla already knew Musk as rocket man.