Investor's Corner
Tesla’s mission is bearing fruit despite escalating attacks from critics
Elon Musk dubs Tesla as a company aiming to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transportation and energy. Since the company started with the original Roadster, Tesla has courted as many dedicated critics as it does supporters. A “Tesla Death Watch” was even published by an online publication back in 2008 as the traditional auto industry waited on what appeared to be the inevitable fall of Tesla.
As history would show, such as thing never came to pass. The Model S was released, followed by the Model X, and now, the Model 3. While the rollout of each of these vehicles was all but problem-free, the electric cars eventually made it to market, and once they did, they were received very well by Tesla’s consumer base. Tesla has grown significantly since the days of the original Roadster and the first-generation Model S, with the company recently manufacturing 5,000 Model 3 in a week during the end of Q2 2018.
In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that the Model 3 ramp was a “bet-the-company” situation, where the failure of the car would have resulted in the electric car company’s crash. During the same interview, Musk also noted that he believes the Model 3 ramp, which has left him with permanent mental scar tissue, is close to leaving production hell. With signs that the company is now attempting to sustain its capability to manufacture 6,000 Model 3 per week, such as more than 19,000 new VIN registrations during the first two weeks of July, Musk’s statements appear to be accurate.
The Tesla Model 3 Performance. [Credit: Tesla]
Despite these, Tesla has been met with continued criticism at every turn. A look at the company’s stock performance in July is indicative of just how divisive the company continues to be. Elon Musk has spent the last few months calling out what he believes is a bias in mainstream media about negative coverage on Tesla’s electric cars. This culminated in a period last May when the CEO openly clashed with journalists on Twitter after Musk suggested that he would start a website evaluating the credibility of news reporters, similar to how Yelp works with businesses. The aftermath of these clashes is still felt today, as proven by a New York Post article published last July 21 dubbing Musk as a complete “fraud.”
In social media, Tesla remains as divisive. Twitter alone is a platform where Tesla’s bulls and bears collide pretty much on an everyday basis. Since the departure of noted Tesla short-seller Montana Skeptic after Elon Musk allegedly called his boss to complain, efforts to undermine the company’s progress have escalated. Today, there is a group keeping the Burbank Airport, a lot used by Tesla to store its vehicles before delivering them to customers across the United States, under 24/7 surveillance. Latrilife, the person conducting the surveillance, claimed on Twitter that he has 350 employees and he deploys 2-person teams to document activity inside the airport lot. Critics of the company are under the impression that lots filled with Model 3 — the Burbank Airport being one of them — were proof that demand for the vehicle was decreasing and that customers are refusing delivery. The misinformation surrounding Tesla in social media has been so prevalent recently that even Vertical Research Group analyst Gordon L. Johnson ended up publishing an inaccurate note to clients about Tesla.
Amidst all this noise and the sensational headlines that Elon Musk triggers on Twitter, Tesla as a company has been quietly making progress in its goal to push the world closer to sustainability. Tesla Energy, a branch of the company that rarely makes the news, was lauded recently by Samoa for helping the island state reach its eventual goal of being powered 100% by renewable energy. During the 2018 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Elon Musk mentioned that another 1 GWh energy project would be announced in the near future. CTO JB Straubel also reaffirmed Tesla’s stance on the residential solar market, stating that the company is in no way stepping back from the residential energy industry.
Tesla’s vehicles are also starting to change the very perception of what cars can do. Jared Ewy, whose video of his family reacting to a surprise Model 3 became near-viral and attracted a Like from Elon Musk, noted in a blog post that he is in no way a “car guy.” Ewy wrote, however, that once he experienced a Tesla Model S, he knew that it was something different. That was why when the Model 3 became available; he opted to order the vehicle immediately. Professional auto journalists are giving Tesla’s vehicles their due as well, with the Model 3 Performance getting rave reviews from seasoned professionals. Among these is the Wall Street Journal‘s Dan Neil, who wrote a glowing review of the high-performance electric car (Neil eventually shut down his Twitter account amidst badgering from short-sellers and Tesla critics).
Even abroad, Tesla’s brand is becoming synonymous with forward-thinking companies that care about the future. In China, Tesla recently released its “Eagle Plan,” a role-playing program designed for children aged 5-12 that would enable kids to be familiar with the company’s products and sustainable energy solutions as a whole. According to information shared by Tesla owner @vincent13031925 on Twitter, the children’s program aims to educate and foster understanding of the company’s corporate mission, as well as its environmental protection significance. In South Australia, a plan is now underway to provide free solar panels and Powerwall 2 batteries to 50,000 low-income housing units as part of a virtual power plant, which could lower electricity bills in the region while providing backup power to the grid.
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.
Elon Musk
Tesla eyes supply partners for Optimus mass production
Tesla certified three Chinese suppliers for Optimus mass production, signaling its robot timeline is accelerating.
Tesla’s robotics team traveled to Ningbo, in China’s Zhejiang province, on September 16 and spent the following day auditing component suppliers for Optimus, according to a Bloomberg report cited by RobotAIGeek. The visit moved three manufacturers from provisional status to certified mass production partners: Tuopu Group, which handles actuators and chassis components, Ningbo Joyson Electronic, a sensor supplier, and Zhejiang Sanhua Intelligent Controls, which builds thermal management systems. All three already supply parts to Tesla’s electric vehicles, and the audit reportedly came with fresh orders that supply chain reports put at an initial batch of roughly 5,000 units.
Tuopu, Joyson, and Sanhua built their manufacturing base serving the automotive industry, where tolerances and volume requirements are already close to what a mass produced humanoid robot demands. Sanhua in particular has history here. Teslarati reported last October that the company had received a roughly $685 million order for linear actuators tied to Optimus, a volume industry watchers estimated could cover around 180,000 robots once production ramped.
Supply chain reports tied to this week’s audit put Tesla’s near term production goal at about 1,000 Optimus units a week by late September, rising to 2,000 to 2,500 units a week by the end of the year. That pace would put real weight behind the timeline Tesla has been building toward since May, when it wound down Model S and Model X production at Fremont to convert that floor space into a dedicated Optimus line targeting one million units annually. JPMorgan analysts who toured the factory in August confirmed the conversion took roughly four months, a pace Musk has called unprecedented for a facility that size.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Fremont is only the first phase. A second, larger Optimus plant is rising at Gigafactory Texas, where drone footage shared by Joe Tegtmeyer last week showed the structural steel nearing completion on the north end of the building. Tesla has said that facility is meant to eventually support production of up to 10 million units a year, though volume output there is not expected before 2027.
Commercial sales of Optimus are still targeted for the second half of 2027, but production is expected to start well before then. JPMorgan analyst Rajat Gupta has said Tesla’s “Optimus Academy” program, which uses early units to collect real world training data inside Tesla’s own facilities, is expected to be running later this year. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Ian Ma described the Ningbo audits as “a positive commercialization signal for China’s humanoid supply chain,” noting that sentiment could improve further if the visit leads to confirmed supplier nominations and larger orders. The Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index rose about 1.4% on the news, though it remains down roughly 30% for the year.
Tesla Semi lands the biggest electric truck deal in U.S. history
Tesla integrates Grok Bot into its vehicles for the ultimate personal assistant
