Of course it has. It was a pump and dump scheme and he got caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. He's a fucking idiot and has no clue about anything and only got where he is thanks to his dad. Fuck him.
Such a weird concept to think of when it comes to something like Twitter.
I don't think twitters value was ever reflected in a share price. It's value was always to move and away opinions, which is far more difficult to put a value on. I know there is plenty of whining happening on Twitter, but as far as I can tell, there hasn't been a truly mass exodus. As long as users are using the platform it's value remains unchanged.
The saudis didn't buy it because they think Elon is reapply smart. they bought it because in some way they think it gives them the ability to leverage or move public opinion. As long as we give it out eyes, it stays valuable.
It’s really not that weird of a concept, unless you consider the entire concept of “value” or “worth” to be weird.
Is Apple worth 2.8 trillion dollars? Is Facebook worth 700 billion? Most of what a company’s “worth” has to do with what people think it’ll be able to do with what it has in the future.
Acquiring users is usually one of the hardest and most uncertain steps for any company, especially social media companies/projects. Once you have the users, monetizing them should be easier. The easiest model is to sell ads. It can also be incredibly lucrative if you have advanced targeting algorithms and collect accurate and high quality data on your users. Another lucrative option is to be a platform and charge 30% of everything going through your platform. In the 90s and 2000s FOSS folks were so worried Microsoft was gonna do that, they let Apple, Google, and Steam do it. Another model is to find small problems or shortcomings here and there, and solve them and charge for them. Twitter is stuck in the last least lucrative one.
Add comment