Reply to post: Re: Found some of the money

Re: Found some of the money

However, this is not a case about fraud and isn't being tried in the same kind of court.

Correct, and yet.

No, you ignored the point about the metric being whatever Twitter wants it to be.

That's your interpretation. Twitter wants it to be approximately 5%, because that's worth $44bn and a large payout to it's execs. But Twitter has told the market it's 5%, based on the metrics or measurements they've defined. But I said-

Fake user/bot numbers might not be an official GAAP metric, but user numbers are a pretty key element of the valuations for social/new media companies, especially if your business case relies on monetising those users.

There is no standard definition of "monthly active users" and, thus, no way of auditing it.

Again, yet. And it could be pretty trivial. Much of it could be done with good'ol RADIUS accounting. Any enterprise should be able to show how many users it has. Again, this is a common metric in company filings. Active users should also be trivial, so how many of those accounts have logged in in the last week/month/quarter. You could go further, and measure if those accounts have performed activity, ie bits sent/recieved, tweets sent, links clicked etc. Again all stuff that should be already monitored by any sane social media company. And again, is part of typical company filings.

Bots or spam accounts would be trickier to define, and protect against. But shouldn't be impossible for any competent software company, ie de-duping accounts, checking for multiple logins, accounts that only exist to spam garbage. Of course that would include many corporate accounts, but those at least seem to be charged for that privilege.

But Twitter did/does this, and picked 5%.

The rest seems to be mostly noise from those with 140 active brain cells or less. The kind of people that believe everything they read on Twitter is 'Russian Misinformation', especially if it can be tangentially related to Trump. So basically the kind of people that seem to think that Musk was going to drop $44bn on a company and completely waive any kind of due diligence. Even though both Twitter and Musk's filing disagree with that viewpoint.

So the trial will boil down to if the information provided by Twitter during contract negotiations was accurate and in good faith, or if it materially misrepresented the state of Twitter's business. Which currently has been obscured by a huge cloud of FUD. Musk says Twitter witheld or obstructed his teams attempts to test the accuracy and reliability of data in public filings, and that he'd relied on for his valuation.

But such is politics. Personally, it's a win-win situation because it'll either show social media companies and their cheer leaders for the shysters they are, or bankrupt Musk.. Especially as there's other litigation rolling on around Musk's business ventures, eg his Solar City dealings. But there will be blood, so Musk's ventures, like Tesla, Sap-X and StarLink go ch.11 or ch.9 because the cash machine gets unplugged, Or if the tech bubble bursts, a lot of investors are going to lose a lot of money. As will Musk's lenders, especially as Musk is arguably the world's biggest debtor. At least he does seem to have that in common with Trump's historical ways of working the banking sector.