Investor's Corner
TSLA’s biggest bull is beating Wall St just as hard as Tesla is beating legacy automakers
Last May 2019, ARK Invest founder and CEO Cathie Wood posted a bold call about electric car maker Tesla. Wood was considered as one of Tesla’s most ardent bulls then, holding a $4,000 per share long-term price target on the company. It was an amount that some in Wall Street seemingly refused to take seriously, but in May, Wood doubled down, publishing a new bull case valuation for Tesla, implying that the company could hit a share price of $6,000.
Proving Critics Wrong
Criticism and mockery came quickly. Tesla bears and short-sellers, many of whom were smelling blood in the water then with TSLA’s ~$200 per share price, immediately criticized Wood. Jim Chanos, one of Tesla’s biggest short-sellers who has been pounding the table with the idea that the electric car maker is worth zero, criticized ARK’s forecasts for the company’s gross margins. Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, flat-out refused to acknowledge Wood’s point, stating that the $1 trillion valuation that ARK was tying to Tesla was “more fairy tale” than reality.
That was May 2019, and Tesla was being battered left and right by analysts posting bearish outlooks on the company. Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas even posted a “bear case” price of $10 per share for Tesla stock, pulling down the electric car maker even further. Yet even then, Wood remained steadfast and unwavering, and ARK continued to buy TSLA shares.
Sixteen months later, Tesla is now trading at about $420 per share — after a five-for-one stock split in August. Instead of following the bearish outlooks of critics from the previous year, Tesla stock had risen tenfold, driven partly by the company’s steady demand for its vehicles and its evident edge against competitors, both from new companies and legacy automakers alike. Tesla is now worth more than five times Ford and General Motors combined, and the company seems poised to reach even newer heights with its energy storage business and battery production plans.
All About Innovation
This has not stopped the critics, of course, with Wood and ARK’s analysts dealing with negativity from groups such as TSLAQ on a consistent basis. Wood, for her part, welcomes the critics. In a statement to Forbes, the ARK founder stated that “It almost makes me feel comfortable, to be honest, because it means if we’re right, then the rewards will be pretty enormous.” Considering ARK’s performance so far, Wood seems to be right on the money. Tesla’s massive rise, for one, has helped propel ARK Invest into one of the fastest-growing and top-performing investment firms in the market, with its flagship ARK Innovation Fund being up 75% in 2020. ARK Innovation Fund has returned an annual average of 36% over the past five years, almost three times that of the S&P 500.
In a way, ARK Invest could be seen as a disruptor on its own, similar to the companies that it so ardently supports. The firm makes its research freely available online for anyone to access, and it also shares the logs for its trades. Even ARK’s workforce is not the run-of-the-mill Wall Street, with Wood preferring to hire young analysts with specialized backgrounds in niche subjects such as molecular biology or computer engineering, as they are likely to be equipped with the necessary skills and background to spot the next trend. This has allowed ARK to take strong positions in numerous emerging technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and DNA sequencing.
ARK’s position in Tesla and the pandemic, which has accelerated the adoption of companies and technologies that are included in the company’s ETF, have helped grow its assets almost threefold this year. Today, ARK holds about $29 billion worth of assets and is valued conservatively by Forbes at about $500 million. “Coronavirus has catapulted our innovative platforms into high gear because they solve problems. Innovation solves problems,” Wood noted. Considering that Wood holds an over-50% ownership of ARK, she currently has a net worth of about $250 million, earning her the No.80 spot in Forbes’ sixth annual list of America’s Richest Self-Made Women.
Betting on Disruption
In a way, ARK’s eventual victory over critics reflects much of Wood’s background. Wood started her career in finance when she apprenticed at Los Angeles fund Capital Group from 1977 to 1980. During her time there, she saw firsthand how interest rates that were approaching 20% adversely affected the market. Wood graduated in 1981 and joined Jennison Associates in New York as an economist. While there, she made an early call that inflation and interest rates had peaked, prompting dismissal from her superiors. As fate would have it, Wood was right.
Wood was eventually moved to Jennison’s equity research division, where she covered the wireless telecom companies in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. She saw firsthand the economic and societal changes that came as mobile phones became ubiquitous. She later moved New York-based AllianceBernstein as chief investment officer for thematic portfolios in 2001, and by the time the 2008 financial crisis hit, Wood figured that a fresh approach was needed for ETFs. In 2012, Wood proposed putting actively managed portfolios of innovative firms inside an ETF structure, but the idea was shunned at AllianceBernstein.
ARK Invest was launched two years later, but the first years of the firm were challenging, with the flagship fund ranking in the bottom quartile of its peer group, as per data from Morningstar. To keep the firm afloat, Wood dug into her savings and sold minority stakes and initiated partnerships with massive firms like Japan’s Nikko Asset Management and the mutual fund firm American Beacon, two companies that now own 39% of ARK. These efforts paid off for Wood, as ARK took off in 2017, thanks to its bets on stocks like Netflix, Salesforce, Illumina, Square, and Athenahealth. Wood also started buying Bitcoin in 2015 at $250 a coin, which the CEO calls an “insurance policy” against inflation.
Overall, Wood’s approach has allowed ARK Invest to thrive in one of the most challenging periods in recent years. The coronavirus pandemic hit hard in March, and the stock market proceeded to plunge. Using her nose for innovative companies, Wood proceeded to focus ARK’s portfolio on fast-growing companies that she believes have the potential to lead the world towards recovery. Together with Tesla, ARK proceeded to load up stocks from education-software company 2U, real estate platform Zillow, and Slack, a workplace messaging platform.
Tesla is a difficult company to value, with Elon Musk describing it more as a collection of startups that are working alongside one another. The company has confounded Wall Street for years, and continues to do so. But if ARK’s performance is anything to go by, Tesla’s valuation and performance may be most accurately analyzed by a firm with an outlook that’s just as disruptive and unique. And this, for Wood, is something that could very well make ARK even more successful in the future.
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.
Google just picked SpaceX for its first step into orbital AI
Tesla Cybercab gets initial tie-in to localized, in-house cathode plant
