Elon Musk
Maye Musk shares frustration over media’s “Nazi family” portrayal amid Elon Musk gesture controversy
There is no doubt that the pitchforks are out for Elon Musk online as of late, especially following the CEO’s speech during U.S. President Donald Trump’s post-inauguration celebration. Unfortunately, it appears that some netizens are now taking out their anger on some of the CEO’s family members, as noted by Maye Musk, mother to the siblings Elon, Kimbal, and Tosca Musk.
The controversy:
- During his speech at Trump’s post-inauguration celebration, Elon Musk thanked the audience for their participation in the recent U.S. presidential elections.
- “Some elections are important. Some are not, but this one, this one really mattered. And I just want to say thank you for making it happen. Thank you. My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured,” Musk said.
- To highlight his point, Musk put his hand to his heart and threw it to the audience twice. The action, when taken out of context with what the CEO was saying at the time, looked very controversial.
The media coverage:
- Coverage of Musk’s salute has been extremely negative, with numerous media outlets quickly using the incident as alleged proof that the CEO was a fascist.
- The narrative surrounding Musk’s controversial gesture, which critics call a Nazi salute, has resulted in Teslas being dubbed as the “Swasticar,” the “Model SS,” and other similar terms on platforms such as YouTube and Instagram.
- It has also prompted a claimed protest that was allegedly projected on the facade of Giga Berlin, which reportedly spelled out “Heil Tesla.”
- It should be noted that Musk has received support from Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who noted that the CEO is not antisemitic. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has also expressed its support of Musk.
It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.
In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media. https://t.co/RKa3UsB7sd— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 24, 2025
Elon Musk’s recent comments:
- Elon Musk is not a stranger to online attacks, and thus, he has remained largely unfazed by the criticism he has been receiving online.
- In a recent post on X, however, Musk did note that “It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.”
- He also noted that “In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media.”
Unfortunately @ToscaMusk ‘s movie streaming platform is suffering. On Facebook, there is continuous hate for @PassionFlix as subscribers should not support a Nazi family. Hundreds have canceled their subscriptions. They actually believe the MSN!!!
For me, I receive numerous USA… https://t.co/JtgJsQJ9RQ— Maye Musk (@mayemusk) January 24, 2025
Maye Musk shares her frustration:
- In a post on X, Maye Musk shared that Elon’s sister, Tosca, and her company, PassionFlix, has been getting attacked online following the CEO’s controversial gesture.
- As per Maye, Tosca Musk’s company, which produces romance films, has been receiving a continuous stream of hate on Facebook.
- Hundreds of subscribers have reportedly left as well since they refuse to support a “Nazi” family.
- “Unfortunately, Tosca Musk’s movie streaming platform is suffering. On Facebook, there is continuous hate for PassionFlix as subscribers should not support a Nazi family. Hundreds have canceled their subscriptions. They actually believe the MSN!!! For me, I receive numerous USA and European media interviews, which I delete. Legacy media needs to die quicker,” Maye Musk wrote.
- In response to Maye Musk’s post, several users on X have voiced their support for Tosca, with some stating that they would be subscribing to the romance streaming platform in support of the CEO’s sister.


Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
Why SpaceX just made a $60 billion bet on AI coding ahead of historic IPO
SpaceX has secured an option to acquire Cursor AI for $60 billion ahead of its historic IPO.
SpaceX announced today it has struck a deal with AI coding startup Cursor, securing the option to acquire the company outright for $60 billion later this year, while committing $10 billion for joint development work in the interim. The announcement described the partnership as building “the world’s best coding and knowledge work AI,” and comes just days after Cursor was separately reported to be raising $2 billion at a valuation above $50 billion.
The move makes strategic sense given where each company currently stands. Cursor currently pays retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI to the same companies competing directly against it with Claude Code and Codex. That means every dollar of revenue Cursor earns partially funds its own competition. With SpaceX bringing computational infrastructure to the Cursor platform, that could reduce Cursor’s dependence on OpenAI and Anthropic’s Claude AI as its providers. Access to SpaceX’s Colossus supercomputer, with compute equivalent to one million Nvidia H100 chips, gives Cursor the infrastructure to run and train its own models at a scale it could never afford independently. That one change restructures the entire unit economics of the business.
Elon Musk teases crazy outlook for xAI against its competitors
Cursor’s $2 billion in annualized revenue and enterprise reach across more than half of Fortune 500 companies gives SpaceX something its xAI subsidiary currently lacks, which is a proven, fast-growing software business with real enterprise distribution.
For Cursor, SpaceX’s $10 billion in joint development funding is transformational. Cursor raised $3.3 billion across all of 2025 to reach that $2 billion in revenue. A single $10 billion commitment from SpaceX, even as a development payment rather than an acquisition, dwarfs everything Cursor has raised in its entire existence. That capital accelerates product development, enterprise sales infrastructure, and proprietary model training simultaneously.
The timing is deliberate. SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC on April 1, 2026, targeting a June listing at a $1.75 trillion valuation, in what would be the largest public offering in history. The company is expected to begin its roadshow the week of June 8, with Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley serving as underwriters. Adding Cursor to the portfolio before that roadshow gives IPO investors a concrete enterprise software revenue story to price in, alongside rockets and satellite internet.
The deal also addresses a weakness that became visible after February’s xAI merger. Several xAI co-founders departed following that acquisition, and SpaceX had already hired two Cursor engineers, signaling where its AI talent strategy was heading. Cursor, for its part, faces a pricing disadvantage competing against Anthropic’s Claude Code.
Whether SpaceX exercises the full acquisition option before its IPO or after remains the open question. Either way, this deal reshapes what investors will be buying into when SpaceX goes public.
Elon Musk
How much of SpaceX will Elon Musk own after IPO will surprise you
SpaceX’s IPO filing confirms Musk will maintain his voting power to make key decisions for the company.
Elon Musk will retain dominant voting control of SpaceX after it goes public, according to the company’s IPO prospectus that was filed with the SEC. The filing reveals a dual-class equity structure giving Class B shareholders 10 votes each, concentrating power with Musk and a handful of other insiders, while Class A shares sold to public investors carry one vote.
Musk holds approximately 42% of SpaceX’s equity and controls roughly 79% of its votes through super-voting shares. He will simultaneously serve as CEO, CTO, and chairman of the nine-member board after the listing. Beyond that, the filing includes provisions that may limit shareholders’ influence over board elections and legal actions, forcing disputes into arbitration and restricting where they can be brought.
The case for Musk holding this level of control is grounded in SpaceX’s actual history. The company’s most important bets, from reusable rockets to a global satellite internet constellation, were decisions that ran against conventional aerospace thinking and would likely have faced resistance from a board accountable to investor gains. Fully reusable rockets were considered economically irrational by established industry players for years. Starlink, which now generates over $4 billion in annual operating profit, was widely dismissed as financially unviable when it was proposed. The argument for concentrated founder control seems straightforward, and the decisions that built SpaceX into what it is today required someone willing to ignore consensus and absorb years of losses.
SpaceX files confidentially for IPO that will rewrite the record books
For context, Musk’s position is significantly more dominant than Zuckerberg’s at Meta. The comparison with Tesla is also worth noting. When Tesla did its IPO in 2010, it did not issue dual-class shares. Musk has only recently pushed for enhanced voting protection, proposing at least 25% control at Tesla in 2024 after selling shares to fund his Twitter acquisition left him with around 13%.
SpaceX has clearly learned from that experience and structured the IPO differently by planning to allocate up to 30% of shares to retail investors, roughly three times the typical norm for a large offering. The roadshow is expected to begin the week of June 8, with a Nasdaq listing rumored to be a $1.75 trillion valuation and a $75 billion raise.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.