News
Tesla and NIO sales suffer in China as bumpy economic conditions continue
It’s no secret that the tensions between the US and China are high, but now it appears to be affecting the rapidly-growing country’s EV market. Don’t get me wrong, China’s EV sales still put the US to shame, more than 45,197 all-electric vehicles in sold April alone. But the more notable portion of that news? Pure EV sales fell 4% compared to the stellar 2018 sales (I’m excluding plug-in hybrids on purpose).
There are a couple of reasons for the speed bump in EV sales growth. First, are the massive changes happening to Chinese NEV (new energy vehicles, which includes plug-in hybrids) subsidies. Second, as mentioned above, the macroeconomic effects from US-Chinese relations. The system for Chinese NEV subsidies is incredibly complex, and I’m not going to pretend to know all the system’s ins and outs. But it’s worth pointing out a few differences from more traditional tax rebates or credits. Tesla doesn’t currently earn any subsidies from their sales in China, their future Chinese-built Model 3s would be eligible for subsidies.*
Only cars made in China are eligible for these subsidies. Tesla has never had access to them.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2019
One of the major differences between the US’ federal tax rebate system and Chinese subsidies lies with the redemption process, or lack thereof. Rather than putting the responsibility on consumers, the Chinese government requires all manufacturers to factor in subsidies into sales prices, then request payment from the government. This process is incredibly beneficial to consumers, allowing them to realize the price reduction immediately, but causes many automotive companies troubles. The subsidy request process in China can take up to a year for automakers to be reimbursed, straining their balance sheets and hurting their cash flow.
This subsidy request process doesn’t cause a huge threat to large established companies, who have strong cash flows from their ICE sales (see, BYD). But for small companies like Tesla and NIO, these sort of subsidy structures can put them at a disadvantage compared to their peers. In fact, NIO’s VP of Quality, Feng Shen, recently told me that he believed that the reduction of subsidies will help NIO in the long term. Tesla’s Musk has echoed this premise with US subsidies (ZEV credits and consumer tax credits)— allowing all companies to compete on a more equal playing field.
While Shen might be right, NIO and Tesla’s sales appear to be taking a hit in part to subsidy reductions. NIO reported only 1,124 sales of the ES8 in April, with a total of 5,113 in the first four months of 2019. However, NIO stated that the ES8 has outsold the Tesla Model X 2:1 in the same four months, indicating ~2,500 sales (foreign-built vehicles aren’t required to report sales figures). While Tesla doesn’t report regional sales figures, NIO’s statements about the ES8’s lead over the Model X hints at the increasing competition in China’s premium all-electric SUV segment.
It’s nearly impossible to tell if macroeconomic conditions or subsidies are playing a bigger role here, but I’d say its safe to assume its a mix of the two are hurting NIO’s sales (Tesla’s US-built vehicles aren’t eligible for subsidies). I wouldn’t say this slump in EV sales is an indicator of long-term demand in the world’s largest automotive market, but both Tesla and NIO have placed large bets on huge demand. Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory is well under construction and the company is expecting huge demand for their lower-cost Model 3, which is priced at RMB 328,000 (~$47,400).
But for NIO, the company is feeling the pressure. Unlike Tesla, China is the company’s sole market and they are burning cash quickly ($390M in Q1). To cut their cash burn NIO has been remarkably reactive, cutting costs by an impressive (obviously not to some) 25% in Q1 and focusing on launching their second (lower-cost) vehicle, the ES6. The company isn’t ready to revise its 2019 guidance (35-40K vehicles) yet, but is cautiously watching the Chinese market.
With the world’s largest auto market hitting a speed bump, the entire industry is on pins and needles, watching and waiting for a recovery. When do you think the Chinese EV market will bounce back? Do you think Tesla and NIO are over-investing in China?
*Update: An earlier version of this article indicated that Tesla’s vehicles were eligible for China’s NEV subsidies. Only NEVs built in China are eligible for these subsidies and Tesla may benefit from them in the future with their Chinese-built Model 3.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk debunks latest rumors about SpaceX IPO
Musk has swiftly put to rest circulating reports suggesting that SpaceX would exclude popular retail brokerages Robinhood and SoFi from its highly anticipated initial public offering. In a direct response posted on X on March 31, Musk stated simply, “These reports are false,” addressing widespread speculation fueled by a Reuters article.
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk debunked the latest rumors about the space exploration company’s initial public offering (IPO), which has been the subject of a wide array of speculation over the last few weeks.
With SpaceX likely heading to Wall Street to become a publicly-traded stock in the coming months, there is a lot of speculation surrounding how it will happen, whether the company will potentially combine with Tesla, and more.
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
But the latest rumors have to do with where SpaceX will list the stock.
Musk has swiftly put to rest circulating reports suggesting that SpaceX would exclude popular retail brokerages Robinhood and SoFi from its highly anticipated initial public offering.
In a direct response posted on X on March 31, Musk stated simply, “These reports are false,” addressing widespread speculation fueled by a Reuters article.
These reports are false
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 31, 2026
The Reuters report, published March 30, claimed that Morgan Stanley’s E*Trade was in talks to lead the sale of SpaceX shares to small U.S. investors.
Sources indicated that Robinhood and SoFi, despite pitching for roles, faced potential exclusion from the retail allocation, with Fidelity also competing for a piece of the action. The story quickly spread across financial media, raising concerns among retail investors eager to participate in what could be one of the largest IPOs in history.
SpaceX has a reported valuation nearing $1.75 trillion, and Musk’s plan to allocate up to 30 percent of shares to individual investors — far above the typical 5-10% — had generated massive excitement.
Musk’s concise denial immediately calmed the narrative. The original X post quoting the rumor garnered significant engagement, with users expressing relief that everyday investors would not be sidelined.
This episode reflects Musk’s hands-on approach to SpaceX’s public debut.
Earlier reporting revealed plans for an unusually large retail slice to leverage Musk’s dedicated fan base and stabilize post-IPO trading. SpaceX aims to file potentially as early as this period, building on momentum from its Starship program and Starlink growth.
The IPO could mark a transformative moment, potentially elevating Musk’s status further while democratizing access to a company long reserved for accredited investors and institutions.
The rumor’s quick debunking also revives debates about retail access in high-profile listings. Robinhood gained popularity during the 2021 meme-stock surge but faced criticism for past trading restrictions.
SoFi has positioned itself as a modern financial platform for younger investors. Excluding them could have limited participation from tech-savvy retail traders who form a core part of Musk’s supporter base across Tesla and SpaceX.
While details remain fluid, Musk’s intervention reinforces commitment to broad accessibility. As preparations advance, investors await official filings. For now, the message is clear: rumors of restricted retail access were overstated, keeping the door open for widespread participation in SpaceX’s public chapter.
This development comes amid broader market enthusiasm for space and technology stocks. Musk’s transparency through X continues to shape public perception, distinguishing SpaceX’s path from traditional Wall Street norms. With retail allocation potentially reaching 30 percent, the IPO promises to be both commercially massive and culturally significant.
Elon Musk
Tesla Optimus Gen 3 is coming to the Tesla Diner with new ambitions
Tesla’s Optimus robot left the Hollywood Diner within months of opening. Now Musk is planning its return with a bigger role and a major Gen 3 upgrade underway.
Tesla’s Optimus robot was one of the most talked-about features when the Tesla Diner opened on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood on July 21, 2025. Dubbed “Poptimus” by Tesla fans, the Gen 2 robot stood upstairs at the retro-futuristic, drive-in theater and Tesla Supercharging station, scooping popcorn into bags and handing them to guests with a wave.
The diner itself had been years in the making. Elon Musk first floated the idea in 2018 with a tweet about building an “old-school drive-in, roller skates & rock restaurant” at a Hollywood Supercharger. What eventually opened was a unique two-story neon-lit space, with 80 EV charging stalls, and Optimus serving as a live demonstration of where Tesla’s ambitions were headed.
If our retro-futuristic diner turns out well, which I think it will, @Tesla will establish these in major cities around the world, as well as at Supercharger sites on long distance routes.
An island of good food, good vibes & entertainment, all while Supercharging! https://t.co/zmbv6GfqKf
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 21, 2025
But Optimus did not stay long, and was gone by December 2025.
Now, the robot is set to return with a more demanding job. Musk has ambitions for Optimus to take on a food runner role in 2026, delivering meals directly to cars at the Supercharger stalls. While the latest Gen 3 Optimus is likely to initially take on its previous popcorn-serving role, it wouldn’t be out of the question for Optimus to see a quick promotion. With improved hand dexterity that features 50 total actuators and 22 degrees of freedom per hand, and significantly more powerful processing through Tesla’s latest AI5 chip that includes Grok-powered voice interaction, Musk described Optimus at the Abundance Summit on March 12, 2026, as “by far the most advanced robot in the world, Nothing’s even close.”
Back to work
See you at Tesla Diner tomorrow pic.twitter.com/H3tTajrUbu
— Tesla Optimus (@Tesla_Optimus) March 30, 2026
That confidence is backed by a major manufacturing shift. At the Q4 2025 earnings call in January, Musk announced Tesla would discontinue the Model S and Model X and convert those Fremont production lines to build Optimus. “It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end,” he said, calling for a pivot that reflects where the Tesla’s future lies.
Elon Musk
Musk forces Judge’s exit from shareholder battles over viral social media slip-up
McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.
Many Tesla fans are familiar with the name Kathaleen McCormick, especially if they are investors in the company.
McCormick is a Delaware Chancery Court Judge who presided over Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s pay package lawsuit over the past few years, as well as his purchase of Twitter. However, she will no longer be sitting in on any issues related to Musk.
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
In a rare admission of potential optics issues in one of America’s most powerful corporate courts, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick stepped aside Monday from a cluster of shareholder lawsuits targeting Elon Musk and Tesla’s board.
The move came just days after Musk’s legal team highlighted her apparent “support” on LinkedIn for a post that mocked the billionaire over his 2022 tweets about the $44 billion Twitter acquisition.
McCormick insisted in a court filing that she harbors no actual bias against Musk or the defendants. She claimed she either never clicked the “support” button, LinkedIn’s version of a “like,” or did so accidentally.
She wrote in a newly published memo from the Delaware Chancery Court:
“The motion for recusal rests on a false premise — that I support a LinkedIn post about Mr. Musk, which I do not in fact support. I am not biased against the defendants in these actions.”
Yet she granted the reassignment anyway, acknowledging that the intense media scrutiny surrounding her involvement had become “detrimental to the administration of justice.”
The consolidated cases will now be handled by three of her colleagues on the Delaware Court of Chancery, the nation’s go-to venue for high-stakes corporate disputes. The lawsuits accuse Musk and Tesla directors of breaching fiduciary duties through lavish executive compensation and lax governance oversight.
One prominent claim, filed by a Detroit pension fund, challenges massive stock awards granted to board members, alleging the payouts harmed the company. The litigation also overlaps with issues stemming from Musk’s turbulent 2022 Twitter purchase.
McCormick’s history with Musk made her a lightning rod. In 2022, she presided over the fast-tracked lawsuit that ultimately forced Musk to complete the Twitter deal after he tried to back out.
Then in 2024, she struck down his record $56 billion Tesla compensation package, ruling the approval process was flawed and overly CEO-friendly. The Delaware Supreme Court later reinstated the pay on technical grounds, but the ruling fueled Musk’s long-standing criticism of the state’s judiciary.
Musk has repeatedly urged companies to reincorporate elsewhere, arguing Delaware courts have grown hostile to visionary leaders. Monday’s recusal hands him a symbolic victory and underscores how personal social-media activity can collide with judicial impartiality standards.
Delaware law requires judges to step aside if there’s even a “reasonable basis” to question their neutrality.
Court watchers say the episode highlights growing tensions in corporate America’s legal epicenter. While McCormick maintained her impartiality, the appearance of bias proved too costly to ignore. The cases will proceed without her, but the broader debate over Delaware’s dominance in business litigation is far from over.
