Investor's Corner
No universal charging standards, Tesla wins
After writing about industrial networking and device standardization in the manufacturing automation space for ten years, I feel quite confident in saying any universal agreement on charging standards are far, far away.
Why, you say? In the manufacturing world, devices and systems need to communicate control signals via fieldbus and ethernet networks in order to monitor many types of applications. Multiple networks standards have been present for twenty plus years, with big automation suppliers — Siemens and Honeywell— in different networking camps, and there’s no universal agreement on one single network.
Sound familiar? CHAdeMO, Tesla Supercharger network and, of course, SAE Combo – these connecting standard are all driven by separate groups of companies. Some companies, such as GM, have no interest in building out a charging network, while German car companies now know the need for a charging platform to sustain a long game strategy.
With so many late entrants into the electric car market, the clear winner for these so-called charging wars is Tesla — not a believer that there is.
Why? The company’s superior Supercharging rates and deployment strategy, including destination charging, will pay dividends for years. For example, a recent Kickstarter campaign started by Quick Charge Power LLC is trying to develop an adapter that allows any battery electric vehicle from North American or Japan to use Tesla’s HPWC. According to the page, the adapter “will only work with Tesla AC charging equipment: the UMC mobile connector or the HPWC (wall connector) and destination chargers”.
With so many destination charging spots, a JDapter could make Bolts and next-gen Leafs a reality for High-Power Wall Chargers.
The company calls it the JDapter, and the big get could be Tesla’s Destination Charging system. In two years from now, a Bolt may have a reservation for a charge session at a hotel ahead of a Tesla owner.
A recent Facebook discussion raised this issue:
“The sites — destination charging — where Tesla installed the HPWCs are the ones who pay for the power; it seems reasonable that they should decide who should charge there. Tesla is even willing to include a J1772 charger with every pair of HPWCs and pay for that installation too.”
Quick Charge Power states that each establishment can create its own policy and has the right to exclude non-Tesla automobiles. And, of course, the adapters can’t work on the Supercharger network.
As enthusiasts and owners, how do we view this development? I feel it’s a win-win for the Tesla brand and to Musk’s ultimate goal of mass electrification.
Tesla is supremely positioned as the most coveted technology and charging platform out there. This is a Silicon Valley company and Musk knows the importance of being THE electric vehicle platform…think Google. As mainstream consumers become aware of Tesla’s direct relationship with its Superchargers, a Bolt and Model 3 charging line issue at a hotel should be minimal. Most will choose Tesla for their first foray into electric cars, purely on a charging criteria.
Plus, non-Tesla charge stations plans are in the works. Recently, Volkswagen, BMW and ChargePoint announced plans to expand DC, fast-charging networks on the coasts.
Also, the Volkswagen diesel rigging scandal is costing them greatly. A portion of the $15 billion settlement goes to promote zero-emission vehicles. The settlement payout, back in the summer, was to be $2 billion and it could go hydrogen filling stations and electric-car charging stations in states like California.
This is good news for Tesla as more stations appear as a result of the company’s adapters. Earlier this year, Tesla applied for a new patent on a CHadeMO and SAE J1772 adapter earlier this year. In the near future, a Tesla owner could be traveling anywhere, not just on the Supercharger network.
The standardization movement is noble but will be bloody for years. Musk and Tesla knew this when it struck out on its electrification strategy and, for now, all roads lead back to Tesla.
In a pointed message on X, Elon Musk warned that firms maintaining significant short positions in SpaceX over time face “very low” survival probability.
The statement comes amid post-IPO volatility for the rocket company, now trading under the ticker $SPCX.
The survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 17, 2026
Five weeks after what was described as the largest IPO in history, the stock had fallen roughly 30% from its peak above $2.6 trillion, briefly surpassing Microsoft and Amazon in market value. Short sellers celebrated gains of about $8.7 billion, but Musk’s reply underscores his long-term conviction.
The warning directly echoes a detailed bullish analysis arguing that Starship’s cost reductions could unlock a multi-trillion-dollar space economy. Projects ranging from solar power beamed from orbit and asteroid mining to orbital data centers and Mars terraforming were projected to create over $100 trillion in new market capitalization.
In this vision, SpaceX acts as the essential infrastructure provider, akin to AWS for cloud computing, capturing monopoly-like revenues from launches, crew transport, and data traffic across a rapidly expanding frontier.
This is far from the first time Musk has targeted short sellers. With Tesla, he has repeatedly framed persistent bears as destined for major losses. In July 2024, Musk declared that once Tesla achieves full autonomy and volume production of Optimus robots, “anyone still holding a short position will be obliterated. Even Gates,” referencing Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ reported short bets.
Elon Musk reveals what Tesla stock surge could do to Bill Gates
Earlier, in 2018, he taunted shorts that they had “about three weeks before their short position explodes,” a remark followed by sharp stock gains. Musk has also called short selling “value destroying” and once suggested it “should be illegal,” viewing it as betting against innovation and progress.
Critics often dismiss Musk’s optimism as hype, especially when near-term metrics like quarterly deliveries or stock fluctuations disappoint.
Yet his pattern remains consistent: framing short positions against his companies as fundamentally misjudging exponential technological leaps. For SpaceX shorts, the message is clear: betting against multi-planetary ambitions and the infrastructure monopoly they enable carries existential risk for the firms involved.
As Musk and supporters see it, the space economy’s upside dwarfs Earth-bound valuation models, making today’s dips temporary in a decades-long ascent.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla’s AI Chief just hinted at something big for FSD v14 lite owners
Elon Musk sends first warning to SpaceX short sellers
