Musk snubs Hoskinson and Fried, partners with Morgan Stanley

So I’m sure we’ve all been following the Elon, Twitter attempted buyout. If you’re like me, you’d be questioning why we’re willing to put so much faith in a single billionaire to advocate for free speech on a censorship ridden platform, in an even more censorship ridden system. I’ve learned in politics it doesn’t matter who you put in the throne, the system is designed a certain way to ensure the same outcome.

Musk, received 2 offers to collaborate and create a decentralized social media platform from Charles Hoskinson and Sam Bankman Fried. These are 2 of the most influential crypto developers, personalities and would have been amazing to see a collab between either 2 or 3 of them.

Twitter board did not like Elon attemp at a takeover and introduced the poison pill plan to dilute the company extensively and prevent Musk from taking a controlling number of shares. This is where Musk (who initially said his first and final offer) opted to ignore the pleas from the crypto world to build something new, something open and transparent and governed by the community itself and chose to instead partner with major bank Morgan Stanley.

The deal $46.5B USD worth of cash/financing from multiple banks. Musk is only putting up $20B cash and using Tesla shares/other financing options to cover the other 26.5B.

This is where I get skeptical, wasn’t the whole purpose to remove these shady individuals who are using the current system to push their preferred narrative? Banks are a prime example of this, I thought we were all anti-financial censorship and now we’re going to have major banks owning a large portion of one of the most popular social media platforms and we’re cheering? Do you really think the banks who are controlled by government have any concern for free speech or our general well-being? We’re just wage slaves to them, and as long as we keep funding and building in broken systems we’re going to keep getting screwed while the top 1% extend the wealth gap and silence any dissent.

What do you think, do you think Elon buying Twitter is the best thing ever? Do you think the banks getting involved threatens the principles Musk so frequently tweets about? Do you think it’s just another move to allow major banks to control social sentiment and move markets? Perhaps you think something completely different, any and all constructive conversation is welcome!

TL;DR

Musk ignored Sam Bankman Fried and Charles Hoskinson offer to build a decentralized form of Twitter, and partnered with major banks Morgan Stanley and others. If successful Musk will provide $20B cash while the banks provide $26.5B in financing. We all know the FUD Elon and banks like to spread about ESG in crypto, I’d expect more of this in the future.

View Source

27 thoughts on “Musk snubs Hoskinson and Fried, partners with Morgan Stanley”

  1. I don’t believe in any billionaire to champion free speech. Historically Elon has crushed his employees when they used their free speech.

    I don’t really care about these rich people warring among themselves

    Reply
  2. You have no idea how that deal works. The banks aren’t “involved”. Musk didn’t “partner” with the banks.

    The banks are lending him money. Period. That’s it.

    They’re not involved in the deal other than lending money. Just like if you go buy a new Corolla, the bank lends you the money but doesn’t drive the car. Just like if you buy a house, the bank lends you the money but they don’t store their shit in your basement. Just like if you buy a hamburger with your credit card, the bank lends you the money but they don’t eat half of your meal.

    Reply
  3. I guess nobody ever listened to Elons interviews. He always said his biggest mistake, or regret, was that he “partnered” when Tesla started. So I can see why he would pass on partnering.

    Reply
  4. The only reason Elon is buying twitter is so he won’t get banned by it. Making it a free speech platform won’t sell and will lead to it’s downfall. He knows this.

    Reply
  5. I just wished he stopped trying to make all these grand gestures and statements

    It’s like a child crying for attention

    Reply
  6. In case you’re not aware, Twitter has been censoring people for many years. I have no doubt that Elon Musk would make Twitter a better platform than it is now. In terms of not wanting to partner with Huskinson, it’s probably because he actually wants to produce something and not just talk about it.

    Reply
  7. Twitter is a company, the buyout is one company trying to take control of the other. The free speech stuff is just marketing to try and leverage public opinion.

    Its great Charles and Sam offered, because if you dont ask you dont get, but it was never going to happen while billions in profits are up for grabs. Crypto is largely incompatible with corporate America/Solicon Valley.

    The whole situation is filed under “ignore”.

    Reply
  8. Sad. Sam could have been an excellent choice in my opinion, then again you can’t expect billionaires to side with the morally right thing always.

    Reply
  9. >This is where I get skeptical, wasn’t the whole purpose to remove these shady individuals who are using the current system to push their preferred narrative? Banks are a prime example of this, I thought we were all anti-financial censorship and now we’re going to have major banks owning a large portion of one of the most popular social media platforms and we’re cheering? Do you really think the banks who are controlled by government have any concern for free speech or our general well-being? We’re just wage slaves to them, and as long as we keep funding and building in broken systems we’re going to keep getting screwed while the top 1% extend the wealth gap and silence any dissent.

    It’s never really about what the people want or what’s best for them – people don’t even know/can’t agree on what’s best tbh. It’s more about how much more the wealthy can gain.

    Nobody really does things for the betterment of everybody unless it’s the best option for financial gain or clout (which ends with more financial gain).

    Reply
  10. Billionaires and politicians have a lot of levers and relationships to work with that normal people don’t. Their influence is just one of those tools and the faster people understand this, the better they can move with the waves rather than be led by the tide.

    Reply

Leave a Comment