News
Tesla, SpaceX, Elon Musk ventures cleared by SEC for private fundraising after tweet controversy
Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company (TBC), and Neuralink have all been granted waivers allowing them to continue raising capital by privately selling restricted securities (typically private equity or debt), heading off potential barriers that would increase the difficulty of raising capital through the sale of securities.
Cued by the commission’s settled suit over CEO Elon Musk’s improper and misleading dissemination of information material to Tesla shareholders, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has granted investment disqualification waivers – specifically “waivers of disqualification under Rule 506 of Regulation D” – to each of the four major companies owned by Elon Musk.
-
- Building giant factories like Gigafactory 2 demands major capital investments that often require private equity sales. (Tesla)
-
- Rockets are perhaps even more capital intensive. (SpaceX)
Losing the ability to raise funds in this manner would make it much harder for companies like Tesla and SpaceX to raise the money frequently needed for expansions and major R&D projects, described in the waiver requests as “extremely capital intensive.” However, the bulk of the arguments provided by each company’s legal representatives can be largely ignored. Arguing to the contrary – i.e. failing to make a strong case that the given company may need private equity investment – could close critical doors that each company may not need right this moment but would like to preserve as an option.
Still, each waiver request offers a slight glimpse into the inner-workings of SpaceX, TBC, and Neuralink, typically hidden from the public eye as privately held entities.
Tesla
Tesla, being a publicly-traded company, offered few secrets in its waiver request. However, it did publicize the best overview yet of what exactly the SEC’s demand for the regulation of Elon Musk’s Tesla-material communications might translate to inside the company. According to Tesla’s legal representatives, the company is arranging the creation of “new, permanent committee…of independent directors only [that] will provide an additional check on the procedures and processes for overseeing Mr. Musk’s Tesla-related public statements.” Tesla will also reportedly task “another experienced securities lawyer…to undertake an enhanced review of communications made through Twitter and other social media by the [sic] Tesla’s senior officers.”
The hope is that this new arrangement will prevent a recurrence of the misconduct that led to the SEC’s suit and the subsequent settlement. More likely, however, is that the threat of the modification or withdrawal of these four waivers will prevent Musk from stepping outside the bounds of the SEC’s binding settlement agreement, as doing so could truly harm the potential of all four companies.
SpaceX
In SpaceX’s waiver request, the company’s legal representatives confirmed that it has raised “more than $2 billion in [eleven separate] securities offerings” that fell under the purview of activities SpaceX would be disqualified from pursuing without a waiver from the SEC. The total value of investments on the public record currently hovers around $2.27 billion, including a partially-finished Series I round that has likely raised that to value to ~$2.5 billion since it surfaced in April 2018.
“The design and manufacture of launch vehicles and spacecraft is extremely capital intensive. SpaceX needs sufficient [and may need to raise additional] capital to fund its ongoing operations and future expansions, for example: development of its BFR launch vehicle and Crew Dragon spacecraft, continuing research and development projects, and making investments in tooling and manufacturing”
The Boring Company & Neuralink
As for TBC and Neuralink, the waivers didn’t offer anything unexpected, although they did provide great, brief overviews of what exactly the two companies are currently working towards. Although it was announced in late 2017 that Musk would sell stock to fund initial operations at TBC and Neuralink, both companies’ legal representatives confirmed the exact amount of funding raised by “Musk and various other third-party investors”: $112.5 million and $100.2 million, respectively.
Both expressly confirmed no intentions to pursue initial public offerings (IPOs) anytime soon, although Neuralink’s waiver indicated that it may invest in or acquire other companies pursuing brain-computer interfaces.
-
- Musk believes that TBC will finish its first test-tunnel in roughly six weeks, in early December. (TBC)
-
- The Boring Company’s next-gen tunnel-boring machine seen in its early stages, October 5th. [Credit: Tom Cross/Teslarati]
-
- While we have no clue what Neuralink’s stealthed work has produced, it’s perhaps the most long-term venture Musk has started. The path to market for medical devices is very long and even more expensive.
The Boring Company
“The Boring Company (TBC) is a fast-growing infrastructure and transportation company focused on developing cost effective, and fast tunneling technology, along with electric mass transportation systems to alleviate the massive problem of traffic and congestion within cities. The research, development, design, manufacture, testing, and construction of tunnels and mass transit systems is a capital intensive business. TBC needs sufficient capital to fund its ongoing operations and future expansions, for example: continued development and improvement of Tunnel Boring Machines (“TBMs”) and electric skates, the construction of mass transit tunnels including publicly announced projects in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C..”
Neuralink
“Neuralink is a fast-growing bio-technology and medical device company focused on developing high bandwidth, long term, brain computer interfaces (“BCI”). The research, development, design, manufacture, testing, and certification of medical devices and BCI’s is purely capital intensive business requiting deep investment for years prior to any initial revenue. Neuralink needs sufficient capital to fund its ongoing operations and eventually bringing products to marked, for example: continued development of BCI’s, continued testing of implantable devices, financing of multi-year FDA trials and certifications, and the construction of FDA-approved manufacturing facilities. Neuralink will need to raise capital for these operations and expansions, and given the development stage of the company, it is most likely that such financing will be through private securities offerings in reliance on Rule 506 of Regulation D.”
Elon Musk said in late November that he’s “tried to warn” legacy automakers and “even offered to license Tesla Full Self-Driving, but they don’t want it,” expressing frustration with companies that refuse to adopt the company’s suite, which will eventually be autonomous.
Tesla has long established itself as the leader in self-driving technology, especially in the United States. Although there are formidable competitors, Tesla’s FSD suite is the most robust and is not limited to certain areas or roadways. It operates anywhere and everywhere.
The company’s current position as the leader in self-driving tech is being ignored by legacy automakers, a parallel to what Tesla’s position was with EV development over a decade ago, which was also ignored by competitors.
The reluctance mirrors how legacy automakers initially dismissed EVs, only to scramble in catch-up mode years later–a pattern that highlights their historical underestimation of disruptive innovations from Tesla.
Elon Musk’s Self-Driving Licensing Attempts
Musk and Tesla have tried to push Full Self-Driving to other car companies, with no true suitors, despite ongoing conversations for years. Tesla’s FSD is aiming to become more robust through comprehensive data collection and a larger fleet, something the company has tried to establish through a subscription program, free trials, and other strategies.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
However, competing companies have not wanted to license FSD for a handful of speculative reasons: competitive pride, regulatory concerns, high costs, or preference for in-house development.
Déjà vu All Over Again
Tesla tried to portray the importance of EVs long ago, as in the 2010s, executives from companies like Ford and GM downplayed the importance of sustainable powertrains as niche or unprofitable.
Musk once said in a 2014 interview that rivals woke up to electric powertrains when the Model S started to disrupt things and gained some market share. Things got really serious upon the launch of the Model 3 in 2017, as a mass-market vehicle was what Tesla was missing from its lineup.
This caused legacy companies to truly wake up; they were losing market share to Tesla’s new and exciting tech that offered less maintenance, a fresh take on passenger auto, and other advantages. They were late to the party, and although they have all launched vehicles of their own, they still lag in two major areas: sales and infrastructure, leaning on Tesla for the latter.
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk’s past warnings have been plentiful. In 2017, he responded to critics who stated Tesla was chasing subsidies. He responded, “Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 and then crushed them in a junkyard,” adding that “they would be doing nothing” on EVs without Tesla’s efforts.
Companies laughed off Tesla’s prowess with EVs, only to realize they had made a grave mistake later on.
It looks to be happening once again.
A Pattern of Underestimation
Both EVs and self-driving tech represent major paradigm shifts that legacy players view as threats to their established business models; it’s hard to change. However, these early push-aways from new tech only result in reactive strategies later on, usually resulting in what pains they are facing now.
Ford is scaling back its EV efforts, and GM’s projects are hurting. Although they both have in-house self-driving projects, they are falling well behind the progress of Tesla and even other competitors.
It is getting to a point where short-term risk will become a long-term setback, and they may have to rely on a company to pull them out of a tough situation later on, just as it did with Tesla and EV charging infrastructure.
Tesla has continued to innovate, while legacy automakers have lagged behind, and it has cost them dearly.
Implications and Future Outlook
Moving forward, Tesla’s progress will continue to accelerate, while a dismissive attitude by other companies will continue to penalize them, especially as time goes on. Falling further behind in self-driving could eventually lead to market share erosion, as autonomy could be a crucial part of vehicle marketing within the next few years.
Eventually, companies could be forced into joint partnerships as economic pressures mount. Some companies did this with EVs, but it has not resulted in very much.
Self-driving efforts are not only a strength for companies themselves, but they also contribute to other things, like affordability and safety.
Tesla has exhibited data that specifically shows its self-driving tech is safer than human drivers, most recently by a considerable margin. This would help with eliminating accidents and making roads safer.
Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
Additionally, competition in the market is a good thing, as it drives costs down and helps innovation continue on an upward trend.
Conclusion
The parallels are unmistakable: a decade ago, legacy automakers laughed off electric vehicles as toys for tree-huggers, crushed their own EV programs, and bet everything on the internal-combustion status quo–only to watch Tesla redefine the industry while they scrambled for billions in catch-up capital.
Today, the same companies are turning down repeated offers to license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology, insisting they can build better autonomy in-house, even as their own programs stumble through recalls, layoffs, and missed milestones. History is not merely rhyming; it is repeating almost note-for-note.
Elon Musk has spent twenty years warning that the auto industry’s bureaucratic inertia and short-term thinking will leave it stranded on the wrong side of technological revolutions. The question is no longer whether Tesla is ahead–it is whether the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart, and Toyota will finally listen before the next wave leaves them watching another leader pull away in the rear-view mirror.
This time, the stakes are not just market share; they are the very definition of what a car will be in the decades ahead.
News
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative.
A video posted on social media has shown an occupied Waymo driverless taxi driving directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
As could be seen in the short video, which was initially posted on Instagram by user Alex Choi, a Waymo driverless taxi drove directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
The driverless taxi made an unprotected left turn despite what appeared to be a red light, briefly entering a police perimeter. At the time, officers seemed to be giving commands to a prone suspect on the ground, who looked quite surprised at the sudden presence of the driverless vehicle.
People on the sidewalk, including the person who was filming the video, could be heard chuckling at the Waymo’s strange behavior.
The Waymo reportedly cleared the area within seconds. No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative. Still, the video spread across social media, with numerous netizens poking fun at the gaffe.
Others also pointed out that such a gaffe would have resulted in widespread controversy had the vehicle involved been a Tesla on FSD. Tesla is constantly under scrutiny, with TSLA shorts and similar groups actively trying to put down the company’s FSD program.
A Tesla on FSD or Robotaxi accidentally driving into an active police standoff would likely cause lawsuits, nonstop media coverage, and calls for a worldwide ban, at the least.
This was one of the reasons why even minor traffic infractions committed by the company’s Robotaxis during their initial rollout in Austin received nationwide media attention. This particular Waymo incident, however, will likely not receive as much coverage.
Tesla Model Y demand in China is through the roof, and new delivery dates show the company has already sold out its allocation of the all-electric crossover for 2025.
The Model Y has been the most popular vehicle in the world in both of the last two years, outpacing incredibly popular vehicles like the Toyota RAV 4. In China, the EV market is substantially more saturated, with more competitors than in any other market.
However, Tesla has been kind to the Chinese market, as it has launched trim levels for the Model Y in the country that are not available anywhere else. Demand has been strong for the Model Y in China; it ranks in the top 5 of all EVs in the country, trailing the BYD Seagull, Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, and the Geely Galaxy Xingyuan.
The other three models ahead of the Model Y are priced substantially lower.
Tesla is still dealing with strong demand for the Model Y, and the company is now pushing delivery dates to early 2026, meaning the vehicle is sold out for the year:
NEWS: New orders for all four Tesla Model Y trims in China are now officially sold out for 2025, as the factory’s remaining production capacity for the year has been fully allocated.
Estimated delivery dates for new orders now show January-February 2026. pic.twitter.com/Dfnu7yY58N
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 1, 2025
Tesla experienced a 9.9 percent year-over-year rise in its China-made EV sales for November, meaning there is some serious potential for the automaker moving into next year despite increased competition.
There have been a lot of questions surrounding how Tesla would perform globally with more competition, but it seems to have a good grasp of various markets because of its vehicles, its charging infrastructure, and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite, which has been expanding to more countries as of late.
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
Tesla holds a dominating lead in the United States with EV registrations, and performs incredibly well in several European countries.
With demand in China looking strong, it will be interesting to see how the company ends the year in terms of global deliveries.
Elon Musk and Tesla try to save legacy automakers from Déjà vu
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
