Investor's Corner
Elon Musk’s Twitter tirade comes amid SEC probe on Tesla’s Model 3 production ramp
Tesla shares (NASDAQ:TSLA) experienced a steep dive on Friday’s trading, dropping more than 7% amidst reports that U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan has asked Elon Musk and the Securities and Exchange Commission to justify the terms of their settlement over the CEO’s “funding secured” lawsuit. Also weighing down Tesla’s stock was Elon Musk’s latest Twitter session, where he seemingly trolled the SEC by dubbing the agency as the “Shortseller Enrichment Commission,” and then doubling down.
Update: Tesla CEO Elon Musk faces contempt claim from SEC over recent tweets
Musk’s latest round of tweets has polarized the Tesla community, as a number of retail investors began directly addressing their concerns to the CEO regarding his behavior and its effects on the price of TSLA stock. While Musk assured the community that they would be fine if they are invested for the long-term, several retail investors nonetheless informed the CEO that they had lost a considerable amount of money due to the apparent market-moving effects of his tweets.
But what’s the point of poking regulators publicly? The greatest problem is sustainable energy as you said, but every distraction erodes goodwill you worked so hard to build.
— Vicente Silveira (@vicentes) October 5, 2018
Just want to that the Shortseller Enrichment Commission is doing incredible work. And the name change is so on point!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 4, 2018
While the reasons behind Elon Musk’s latest Twitter session are still up for question, some details about the CEO’s aggravation over the SEC appear to have been teased by FBN’s Charlie Gasparino. In a segment on Fox Business, Gasparino noted that sources close to Tesla’s legal team and the SEC had informed him that the agency is still investigating Tesla, not because of Elon Musk’s “funding secured” tweet, but over the company’s previous forecasts on the Model 3 production ramp and and the company’s profitability.
“What we reported was from people close to the Tesla legal team and the Elon Musk legal team. What they’re telling us is that the SEC does continue to investigate Tesla. Remember, the “funding secured” thing is out of the way, but there’s an existing investigation that could take a bit longer. It involves Tesla and Elon Musk’s stated production goals for the Model 3 largely, and profitability; if those things match up to reality, and whether there’s a fraud case by saying ‘Hey, we’re gonna reach profitability, for example.’”
“The case focuses again on targets that Musk made and some of the other corporate executives as well, about when the Model 3 was gonna come out, how many were gonna be produced, and profitability. When Tesla was gonna be profitable. Remember, these goals have changed along the way. He’s now saying the third quarter should be profitable. We’ll see if it happens.”
Gasparino noted that the SEC’s investigation into Tesla’s Model 3 production and profitability goals would likely be more challenging for the agency than its “funding secured” lawsuit against the CEO. In order to corner Musk and Tesla, the SEC would have to prove that the company knowingly misled investors about the Model 3 ramp. If Tesla or Elon Musk admits that it has honestly miscalculated the progress of the Model 3 ramp, the SEC would likely have a difficult time proving its case. Gasparino noted that his sources in the SEC had informed him that this other Tesla investigation would likely be a very “tough” venture for the agency.
“This is a much tougher case. While it still exists, it’s still problematic for the company; it’s a much tougher case than the other one. This is something that you literally have to go back, look at his statements, look at potential emails where they might be telling each other ‘Hey, we know this is BS, we’re just throwing it out there.’ That’s what the SEC is looking at. So this is a much tougher case, and that’s why the market looks like it’s coming off its lows on this, because people are saying ‘Maybe they got done with the other case, and that’s about it.’”
“This is where we are right now. We should point out that cases like this take months. They’re tough to prove. Very hard to prove that someone was specifically lying about a production goal. You could say “Listen, I thought we’re gonna produce that many Model 3, I thought we were gonna hit production profitability in the second quarter. I was wrong, I misinterpreted.” That type of honest mistake, even though I think most CEOs know you shouldn’t say that sort of stuff. You try not to get forward-looking statements; you always run into problems. That is a tougher case then ‘funding secured,’ and you don’t have funding secured.
“I think if you’re betting that he might be, from a regulatory standpoint, largely out of the woods. I’m not saying he is. If you’re betting, I’m just saying these are tougher, tougher cases. And I can tell you, my sources inside the SEC are telling me that.”
There is no denying that Elon Musk’s Twitter twitter behavior has resulted in losses for Tesla’s investors once more. By the time markets closed on Friday, Tesla stock had lost the recovery it gained earlier in the week after the release of its impressive Q3 production and delivery numbers, as well as the announcement of Elon Musk and the SEC’s settlement. In this sense, Elon Musk’s decision to poke the agency seems like a miscalculation at best.
That said, if the seasoned journalist’s sources are correct and the SEC is still pursuing Tesla over its Model 3 goals, at a time when production of the electric sedan is hitting its stride and the vehicle is getting warmly received by consumers, then Elon Musk’s aggravation becomes a bit more understandable. Nevertheless, with millions in the Tesla community investing their hard-earned money to support the company, then it seems safe to say that Elon Musk should have known better.
Watch Charlie Gasparino’s segment on Fox Business in the video below.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Optimus Gen 3 shows off a cleaner, factory-ready design in new app discovery
Renders hidden inside Tesla’s Android app show Optimus Gen 3’s design before any official reveal.
![Tesla Optimus Gen 3 [Credit: Tesla]](https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/tesla-optimus-gen3-diner.jpg)
Tesla may have accidentally given a first look at its newest Optimus Gen 3 humanoid robot when photos were found in the Tesla smartphone app.
Design files tucked inside a recent Android version of the Tesla app appear to show the third generation humanoid robot next to the older Gen 2.5 prototype. The assets were extracted from the app package by Tesla community member @wholemars, who posted the renders on X late Tuesday night before deleting them. The Tesla Newswire reshared the side by side comparison on Wednesday, and the images have circulated widely since.
Tesla Optimus Gen 2.5 vs Gen 3 comparison via @WholeMars on X
The files are labeled “gen3” and were built as models for Tesla app’s own interface, as validated directly by Grok to be official.
The comparison shows a robot that looks built for a factory line rather than a lab bench. Gen 2.5’s exposed mechanical linkages and gold plating on the knees and shins are gone. In their place, Gen 3 uses matte black fairings on the lower legs, paired with a more contoured champagne gold body. Flexible covers now seal the joint where the torso meets the upper thighs, keeping bearings and moving parts sealed from debris and unnecessary contact.
The body panels fit more tightly, and the hands, which Tesla has said carry 22 degrees of freedom, look far more refined than those on earlier units.
This most recent leak fills a gap Tesla has left open for most of the year. Elon Musk said on March 31 that Optimus 3 was walking around but needed “some finishing touches” before it could be shown, a delay Teslarati covered when Tesla missed its first quarter reveal target. Musk later said Tesla would hold the design back until closer to production, partly to keep competitors from copying it. No reveal date has been announced.
The app itself has been preparing for Optimus for months. In July, code in the Tesla app pointed to a dedicated robot phone key, a consent screen for collecting video and spatial data while Optimus works inside a home, and an alert system for low battery and mechanical faults. Finished 3D models of Gen 3 suggest the interface owners will eventually use is moving past placeholder code toward something Tesla intends to ship.
Manufacturing is moving in parallel. Tesla tore out the original Model S and Model X lines at Fremont this summer to make room for Optimus production, with a planned capacity of one million robots a year. At Giga Texas, the steel frame of a dedicated Optimus factory is nearing completion ahead of a targeted 2027 start, with Musk pointing to an eventual output of 10 million units annually.
Elon Musk
X changed how everyone gets paid, and this lawsuit shows why
X sued a Bitcoin account network over fake payouts as its creator pay model shifts
Elon Musk’s X has taken a Bitcoin-focused engagement ring to court, and the case doubles as a receipt for how differently the platform pays creators today. The company filed suit in the High Court of England and Wales against Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa, alleging the pair ran six accounts, including @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy and @TrendingBitcoin, as one coordinated operation to fake the kind of engagement that used to translate directly into money.
According to the filing, first reported by Gizmodo, the accounts posted near identical “BREAKING” crypto headlines seconds apart, in one case 11 seconds, then had three more handles like, reply to and repost the material to manufacture what X called “a false appearance of genuine, human communication and interaction.” X says the scheme pulled in at least £207,384, about $278,000, and pegs its own investigation and remediation costs at another £75,000. The accounts were suspended August 18. X general counsel James Burnham announced the case on X last weekend, writing that the company “will act forcefully to protect our platform and the earnings of genuine creators.” Musk’s own reaction, posted shortly after, was three words: “Don’t mess with 𝕏.”
Don’t mess with 𝕏 https://t.co/HSmd5hL6aQ
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 21, 2026
The timing lines up with a a recent update to how X pays its creators. The program these accounts allegedly gamed, Creator Revenue Sharing, launched in mid 2023 and paid out based on how much a post got engaged with. Originality was never part of the formula, which is exactly how the platform ended up flooded with recycled clips, copy pasted “BREAKING” posts and replies engineered purely to farm reactions from paying subscribers.
X tried patching the model more than once, including an April cut to aggregator payouts and a March regional weighting change that Musk personally paused hours after it was announced. X retired Creator Revenue Sharing for good on September 7 and opened its replacement, Original Content Rewards, the next day.
Today, we’re launching Original Content Rewards.
The reality is that Revenue Sharing had reached a point where its incentives were misaligned. Creators should be focused on bringing net new content to the platform instead of maximizing payouts. We could have kept adding more… pic.twitter.com/VJIxqlPrjm
— Allegra Jacchia (@allegrajacchia) August 7, 2026
The new math is stricter. Payouts now come only from qualified impressions, meaning unique Home Timeline views from Premium subscribers where at least half the post is visible, and replies no longer count toward eligibility at all. Copied posts, reuploaded media and reposts without meaningful changes are explicitly excluded. Allegra Jacchia, senior product manager for Creators at SpaceXAI, which now runs X’s product and AI work following xAI’s acquisition of the platform, put it bluntly, saying the goal is to reward creators who bring original ideas and perspective, “not those who have become best at gaming the system.”
Read that way, the lawsuit isn’t really about six crypto accounts. It’s X putting a dollar figure on what the old incentive structure cost, then suing to collect it right as the new one goes live. For live updates on how the case and the new rewards program shake out, follow @Teslarati on X.
Elon Musk
Why automakers keep turning down Elon Musk’s Tesla Full Self-Driving offer
Elon Musk confirms no automaker has ever accepted Tesla’s offer to license Full Self-Driving software.
Elon Musk gave a brief answer on X Monday that confirmed that Tesla’s standing offer to license Full Self-Driving to other automakers still has zero takers. Sawyer Merritt wrote that “Tesla has for years openly invited other automakers to license FSD. None of them have accepted,” responding to a prediction from Boom Supersonic founder Blake Scholl that Tesla would eventually open FSD the way it opened its Supercharger network to rival brands. Musk’s reply to Merritt was one word: “Exactly.”
It is not the first time Musk has made this point. He said something similar in November, when he called legacy automakers reluctance to adopt FSD “crazy,” and Tesla has floated the offer publicly since at least 2021. Scholl’s prediction touches on something real. Once NACS became the de facto charging standard, adoption from Ford, GM, Rivian and others followed within about a year. FSD licensing was supposed to work the same way once Tesla built enough of a lead that switching made sense for everyone.
Tesla has for years openly invited other automakers to license FSD. None of them have accepted. https://t.co/kgz4idpoUM
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 22, 2026
The case for licensing now is stronger than it was two years ago. Waymo and Zoox are logging hundreds of thousands of unsupervised autonomous miles, along with Tesla’s own Robotaxi fleet. Every automaker still selling driver assist systems that lag FSD has given the robotaxi conversation to Tesla, Waymo and Zoox by default. Licensing FSD would let a GM or a Ford compete on the same field without spending a decade and billions of dollars building a stack from scratch, the same argument Tesla made when it opened the Supercharger network to bring more EVs onto its chargers.
But FSD is not a connector standard. As one reply to Musk’s post pointed out, licensing FSD is not a software license the way NACS was a plug spec. It requires adopting Tesla’s eight camera layout and its onboard compute architecture, meaning a licensee’s cars would effectively become Tesla hardware wearing someone else’s badge. That is the visible obstacle. The less visible one is data. A licensed FSD stack would report back the same telemetry Tesla collects from its own fleet, giving Tesla a continuous read on how a competitor’s cars are actually driven, where they struggle, and how often drivers intervene. For an automaker trying to build its own autonomy program, or simply trying to keep its build quality and safety record private, handing Tesla that visibility could be a bigger cost than the hardware bill. It is the reason the Supercharger comparison only goes so far. Opening a charging plug cost Tesla very little. Opening FSD would cost a rival something it cannot get back.
Tesla’s surprise Roadster video hints the 2017 design is gone
Tesla Full Self-Driving release in the EU gets delayed
