Just based on historical experience. On the few things that I know about more than a cursory level the topic is either stale, or not usefully shallow, or incorrect (without attributing malice or incompetence) on Business Insider.
Not sure how to objectively prove my claim. The evaluating source could also be biased? If anyone has a source proving or disproving BIs merit as a news source, would appreciate you sharing it.
PS. No idea what Elon has to do with a random newspaper/blog post. Is this a Peter Thiel / Gawker reference? A Bezos / Washington Post allusion? A Bill Gates / Elon Tesla investment thing? You do know they are different people right, and not all famous/rich people are one homogenous blob indistinguishable from one another. And just in general it’s not clear how being rich / prominent qualifies you to be a noteworthy evaluator of news quality, especially when you’re likely frequently mentioned (probably negatively). Totally unfounded, but since humans are drawn to trauma porn, I’d assume 80%+ of news about billionaires is negative, and I’d further assume that 80%+ of billionaires hate the “common person” news outlets. So therefore I’d particularly be hesitant to take their recommendation of what to read. But that’s just a wild guess.
It was a tongue in cheek reference to Elon Musk calling out Business Insider. Judging by the downvotes I should have been more clear and at least linked to the tweet.
Ah okay, this I actually know; see exhibit 115-1 on page 15 and repeated on page 23 from FTXs docket [1] managed by Kroll here: https://imgur.com/a/GxPEzIp (sorry for sloppy screenshot, on my phone).
What Elon is alluding to is a “roll over”. So, assume you have a house you bought with your brother 60/40% that you want to sell for $1M. What you can do is your brother “rolls over” which amounts to basically (assume no debt aka mortgage) his 40% which mathematically is the same as if he cashed out $400k at close simultaneously with you, and immediately reinvested it into the house with the new buyer. Elons choice of words suggests one of two things: a) no new money came in but FTX rolled over into the take private, reducing the financing Elon had to bring to the table OR b) he did not offer that to FTX and he essentially redeemed their stake and wrote a check at closing. Not sure which is true.
The exhibit suggests that FTX does indeed own 0%, however considering the required creditor matrix was filed confidentially in redacted fashion with the court, who knows what’s real.
To be honest, when the revelations about Kipman came out, I was not quite surprised. On stage he was always a bit unsettling - I’m not sure if it was the hair style, manner of speaking, or the giant eyeball T-shirt (he actually has photos of himself in at least three different eyeball T-shirts, so it’s a weird fashion choice and not just one that he has). He screamed creepy weird nerd.
Kipman got the boot after the original version of this article got released if I remember. Myerson and Keane I am not sure of, they're probably harder to get rid of.
