This is fair, re: the binary approach to discussin Elon and Twitter not being helpful. But if you’re saying Twitter was a diversification that wise balance to Elon’s portfolio?I think one thing I got out of this whole thread is the important of diversification. I think it's one thing to be all-in when there wasn't so much noise, but another thing when all the dust clouds started to get kicked up (and I think there was a difference when it was FUD against Tesla the company vs the dust Elon has kicked up). Regardless of your view on Elon, I think the prudent thing to have done is to at least diversify a bit or at the very least reduce margin exposure.
How does this relate to Twitter? Well I do not think one can argue in good faith that Twitter has had zero impact on Tesla, but people get hyperfocused on wanting to be right and ignoring the big picture (I imagine two people arguing about who has right of way on a road as a flood wave approaches them), and they only end up hurting themselves. Sure, some may end up ok in the end (or even become way ahead by "sticking it to the man"), but that's a gamble one has to take if they choose to remain all in. And even as those people say "see, I was right!" you have to remember risk tolerance and morality is going to be different for everyone.
It was not only unwise for the reasons long discussed here but also because of the nature of the company.
Related diversifications have by far the best chance of success and are widely regarded as the kind that strengthens an organization rather than potentially weakens it….. Twitter is not at all a related diversification….It could scarcely be more different than Tesla, Boring etc. and obviously the skills to make it succeed are different.
Last edited: