Investor's Corner
Venture capitalist defends Tesla and Elon Musk, issues bold takedown on TSLA skeptics
There are a lot of reasons why Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) is fighting an uphill battle. The company is changing the status quo in both the auto industry and in the emerging autonomous driving market. Its CEO, Elon Musk, continues to be a polarizing figure for many. These, together with the mass numbers of short-sellers betting on the company’s failure, makes Tesla a dramatic stock in the market; and this became evident in the aftermath of the company’s first quarter financial results and earnings call.
Venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, an early investor in Facebook who is estimated to be worth around $1.2 billion today, believes that many are missing the whole point about Tesla. In a segment with CNBC Halftime Report host Scott Wapner, Palihapitiya explained why he fully supports Tesla, its vehicles like the Model 3, and its CEO, Elon Musk. A video of the venture capitalist’s segment has been cut from CNBC’s uploads of the interview, though copies of the footage have been saved by some members of the Tesla community since it aired (credit to @TradrFloridaFIL for providing the video and transcription of the interview).
Palihapitiya starts by arguing that Elon Musk has already completed endeavors that will benefit humanity for a long time to come, citing the reusable rockets of SpaceX, which have brought the costs of spaceflight down significantly. The venture capitalist notes that Tesla is now maturing under all the demand for its vehicles, particularly the Model 3, which has brought the company closer than ever to the mass market. While Palihapitiya admits that Tesla is not best-suited for investors who are particular with quarter-over-quarter precision, he argues that the company has nonetheless impressed on the long term.
The venture capitalist also expressed his criticism of Tesla skeptics, mainly hedge funds, who are proficient at under-hyping and “sniping” the electric car maker. This is something that has weighed down the company over the past quarters, and has caused CEO Elon Musk to respond personally to critics online. “What it’s controlled by are a bunch of vulture-like venture and hedge funds, mostly hedge funds who like to prey on that company. If you look at for example the Twitter traffic or if you look at the forum traffic around Tesla the amount of hyping or under-hyping the amount of sniping is enormous. All of that signals to me that it is a market that is out of the control of the founders and the executives and firmly in the hands of financial manipulators,” Palihapitiya said.
While Palihapitiya admits that Elon Musk has a problem with his overly-aggressive timeframes, the venture capitalist candidly noted that the world might be better off if Elon Musk were just allowed to “do his job.” “If you take a five-year step back and say what is he promised in 2014 to what is he doing in 2019 you’d be ecstatic. Similarly, if you take a step back and say from 2019 to 2024 let the man do his job, will we be better or worse off as a planet, as a species, as humanity, as consumers? Will we be better off?” he said.
A particular point of criticism for Elon Musk lies in his behavior online. Musk’s Twitter account could be considered as one of Tesla’s greatest assets or liabilities, in the way that its contents have triggered both positive and negative swings for TSLA stock. Tesla critics currently view Musk’s Twitter antics as a critical part of their bear thesis, particularly since his actions are allegedly not reflective of a CEO that is professional and in control. This was brought up by the CNBC host during the venture capitalist’s interview, and Palihapitiya was quick to issue a rebuttal. According to the billionaire, people that are caught up in concerns about Musk’s Twitter are missing the whole point, even considering the CEO’s now-infamous “funding secured” tweet.
“Okay, maybe he stepped out of bounds. My point is you’re getting caught up in the window dressing. I’m focusing on the main course. The main course is on the table. The choice for you as a buyer or a seller of that stock is, do you want to eat it? If you get caught up in all of the stuff around the edges, maybe he may mistweet from time to time. My point is, who cares? Your job as a smart investor is to separate the facts and the news from the fiction and the noise. And all of that stuff doesn’t matter. It does not change the fact that tens of thousands of consumers are buying that car faster than they can get their hands on it. It doesn’t change that the minute you sit inside that car, your definition of what is expected is altered forever and you wonder why every other car around you that you ever step in that you may buy doesn’t have the same things that that car offers. So at the end of the day, whether you like his style or not, his substance is irrefutable,” he said.
In response to the CNBC host’s question about the upcoming competition from veteran auto, the venture capitalist notes that at this point, it is evident that Tesla will be the “clear winner” in the electric car industry. This comment is not just blind support for Tesla, as even premium electric cars being produced by legacy auto today still fall short of the specs and capabilities of the company’s vehicles. Vehicles like the Audi e-tron, for example, feature more luxurious interior finishes than a Tesla Model 3, but when it comes to efficiency and software, the vehicles are years behind. Palihapitiya argues that even if Tesla reaches a point where it will need to be bailed out, larger companies like Apple or Google will likely acquire the electric car maker.
“You’re right because I remember all the Zune media players I bought after Apple released the iPod. I also remember the enormous number of amazing smartphones I bought when the iPhone was like… It’s not what people do. You know it tends to be the case that when you redefine expectations and you have a category leader, and you have an indelible brand and a mark that people recognize, the easiest decision. Let me be a little pejorative; the lazy decision is to pick the winner and go with it. And in this case there is a clear winner in electrification, it is done. That die has been cast. And so now the question is can he build the infrastructure to deliver the demand? And if given time and if given patience I believe he will and I vote with my money that he can do that.
“And everybody that bets against him can do that as well but at what stake really, because it’s not as if there’s no downside protection for the stock. The people who short this company are so short-sighted because the number of companies that would come out of the woodwork… You don’t think that Apple with 200 billion dollars of cash backstops this company and has a chance to enter a trillion dollar market overnight by buying that business if it gets imperiled in any way? Google which already tried to buy it wouldn’t try to buy it again? So what are we betting against? We’re betting against the cleaner earth because we don’t like that? We like to suck in the carbon monoxide and the fumes from all these cars? We’re betting against beautiful flat screens, beautiful ways in which to manage your experience inside the car because we don’t like that?” he said.
Ultimately, Palihapitiya argues that the bets against Tesla are usually bets against Elon Musk’s style. When the CNBC host brought up noted short-seller Jim Chanos and his stance against the electric car maker, the venture capitalist did not mince his words. “Jim Chanos makes money once a decade. And while the market rips up the guy just bleeds money, and he’s never on CNBC and every time something works he’s there for five minutes. Great for Jim Chanos, fantastic as a hedge in a portfolio where you have 1% in a short fund but the reality is being long equities makes sense. Being long innovation makes sense. Betting against entrepreneurs that are changing the world has never been a profitable endeavor. Why start now?” he said, adding that he will be happy to post his returns against Chanos’ fund any time when challenged once more by the CNBC host.
Watch Chamath Palihapitiya’s segment on CNBC’s Halftime Report 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.
SpaceX completes another secret Pentagon launch, adding to suspected Starshield buildout
Tesla hints at new Roadster design in surprise clip
