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.”
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.
With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.
It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.
These are my thoughts on it thus far:
Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag
Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.
I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.
Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.
To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.
In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.
Strange Turn Signal Behavior
This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.
Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.
On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.
Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:
How can we get Full Self-Driving to stop these turn signals?
There’s no need to use one here; the straight path is a driveway, not a public road. The right turn signal here is unnecessary pic.twitter.com/7uLDHnqCfv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 28, 2026
When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.
Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.
Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.
Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.
I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.
Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming
Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.
However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.
Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.
A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.
I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.
It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before
Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.
I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.
I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.
Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:
🚨 Cruising home on a rainy, foggy evening and my Tesla on Full Self-Driving begins to slow down suddenly
FSD just wanted Mr. Deer to make it home to his deer family ❤️ pic.twitter.com/cAeqVDgXo5
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 4, 2026
Navigation Still SUCKS
Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.
It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.
It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.
It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.
Investor's Corner
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.
Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.
In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”
Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.
This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:
“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”
The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.
Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.
This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.
Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.
The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.
News
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever
Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess
