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.”
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
