All well and good, it's just that if this thing was such a problem it should have been addressed at the time it was signed. I am not qualified to judge if it was outrageous, illegal or whatever - all I see from where I'm sitting is that it became a problem only after it became clear the goals stipulated in the agreement (goals which were, at the time of their signing, at least as outlandish and unrealistic as the rewards promised if said goals were achieved) will be met.
Sorta looks like a sandbox deal of old..."Yes, I'll give you my Hulk sticker if you eat this bug...Oh, wait, you actually ate it..."
As for the stupidity of shareholders - Tesla is over valuated at least 10x at its worst times. The real stupid thing to do would be to actually treat it like a normal company and expect that stellar management and a stellar team is what/all it needs. If it got those, it would become the most futureproofed company ever, building the very best cars in the galaxy, but will also drop to the valuation of any other large and successful car company.
So the shareholders ride the tiger and try to figure out what will not burst the bubble till money becomes so cheap that the value of the company becomes the new normal. Or till the bubble bursts. Whichever comes first.
Keeping a despicable individual at the helm is probably not the smartest, but nor is it the stupidest thing they could do.
However, that's besides my point. My point was simply that no shareholder that owned shares at the time when this agreement was signed has been wronged. And whoever bought shares after - should have maybe just checked it, if it matters that much to them.
And this is where I disagree with the "...Signed agreements that agree to give away your money should raise a bit more outrage if you weren't the one who signed them...". If I buy stock after the agreement was signed - I agreed with it. If I bought stock before - I should raise my concern at the time of signing.
If I move into a new building, I agree with the existing rules. If I live in a building and the rules change - I can voice my disagreement. Moving into a building AND raising hell to change the rules I signed to get in is also my right, however I wouldn't call the other apartment owners stupid when they vote to keep the existing rules - no matter how outrageous. I would say that we disagree.
As for the outrageousness of the sum - the only thing more outrageous is that the company can move 1.5x that in either direction on a few simple tweets. So there's that.