A Danish pension fund has blacklisted SpaceX, calling it grossly overvalued with catastrophic governance

AkademikerPension will not buy SpaceX shares at any price near the $1.8 trillion IPO target, saying the company cannot reasonably be worth more than $1 trillion and that Musk’s voting control makes it effectively uninvestable

https://thenextweb.com/news/danish-pension-spacex-blacklist-governance-overvalued

Danish pension fund blacklists SpaceX IPO over governance

AkademikerPension calls SpaceX "grossly overvalued" at $1.8T and cites "catastrophic governance." Fund joins US pension giants in flagging Musk's 85% voting control.

Hey everybody, don't forget that this market can be somewhat arbitraged here, to an extent.

@Ynad23 Oh! You're here! Do you agree with @Gen's interpretation?

@Quroe I’m only partially in agreement with this approach. Media coverage is not always an accurate reflection of reality, and news articles often rely on the same underlying source rather than providing independent verification. As a result, multiple articles calling Musk a trillionaire do not necessarily prove that he has actually crossed the $1 trillion threshold.

I also think it is inconsistent to resolve YES when only one of the two primary trackers is above $1 trillion while the other is still below it. If the goal is an objective and verifiable standard, the strongest criterion would be for both Bloomberg and Forbes to show Musk’s net worth above $1 trillion.

@Ynad23

If there is no substantive opposition this becomes the resolution criteria on June 10th

-Genzy's comment

I believe your clarification has higher priority. Are we locking this in? "AND" logic all the way?

@Quroe @Ynad23
Suppose there was disagreement between the sources from IPO to 30 June, but then one jumped to being in close agreement with the other.

Would we sensibly conclude that the source that didn't jump was the better source?

I wouldn't suggest we wait more than a couple of weeks after June 30th to see if this happened. If it doesn't happen then your AND logic?

It seems reasonable to me that this market should resolve based on:

- At least one of the linked Bloomberg or Forbes trackers showing Musk >$1Trillion
AND
- At least 3 other sources, e.g. news articles, which I'm sure there will be many, asserting he is a Trillionaire -- Some already exist, but imo it will be plainly obvious when the media 'agrees' that it happened

OR
- Both linked trackers show Musk >$1Trillion

Does anyone disagree with this? If there is no substantive opposition this becomes the resolution criteria on June 10th

@Gen I'm unsure what you a calling "3 other sources". In a strict journalistic sense a source is an origination of information, meaning if Bloomberg publishes it and 50 articles are written about it then there is ONE source, those 50 articles are just quoting Bloomberg.

I suspect from your wording you use a more colloquial definition of source, which would completely subvert the need for 2 sources since Bloomberg declaring it would obviously be reported by others.

@hidetzugu sorry, I meant it in the most fluffiest meaningless sense. Just 3 other places vaguely validating that >1T happened, sources of validation, not actual sources— my bad!

@hidetzugu basically if one shows >1T it should be fine, imo, but in exceptional circumstances where nobody writes about it, such as a technical error showing >1T, we wouldn’t resolve on that. I don’t know how else to capture the spirit of this and dispel the concerns.

I don’t expect this market to have a controversial outcome

@Gen Me neither, we're just taking into consideration @Quroe 's concerns, and the description does give him cause to expect both.

I'd perhaps suggest requiring the 2nd source to be non-fluffy if there's a disagreement. I suspect Elon himself would tweet it from the rooftops and that's a source in of itself.

@Gen Looks good to me!

I'm also bothered by the possibility that the two sources differ. Made a meta-market for security: https://manifold.markets/morallawwithin/if-forbes-bloomberg-disagree-about

@morallawwithin

Limit up. 1 hour.

Surely not, right? Right?! Like there's no way, surely? Shit, it's gonna happen isn't it? v_v

@TheAllMemeingEye SpaceX IPOs in june, seems like a solid bet atp

@Marnix We should price in how there are likely bureaucratic shenanigans going on under the hood here. Maybe somebody throws a wrench into the system.

Trillionaires shouldn't exist

@skibidist what's the largest amt of wealth one ought to be able to have

@Bayesian To be determined by the European Commission

@Bayesian To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities (c)

@Bayesian $69,420

@skibidist if only the US gov was selling hats for drivers license, they could remove income tax from 'golden glow' proceeds alone

@Bayesian no one gets two billion until everyone gets one.

@JimAusman Huey Long ass answer.

Let's take a ridiculously extreme example and see if there is actually a line for how much money somebody ought to have. If it is objectionable, then the moral/ethical limit exists somewhere.

Imagine a world where 1 person had a quadrillion dollars in net worth, and literally everybody else on earth had no money or was in debt. Ought this world exist?

@Quroe In 1978 the United States had one billionaire.

that’s a wild stat

@Quroe Depends. Is it me? I've always seen myself as a temporarily embarrassed quadrillionaire

@TiredCliche Be careful what you wish for.

@Quroe definitely https://www.si.edu/object/100000000000000-dollars-zimbabwe-2008%3Anmah_1694052