Did Musk play 4D Chess w/ Twitter? (Deal on Hold)

It’s not 4D chess to make sure the user count is real. That’s what can be monetized and using Twitters own number is the correct measurement.

If it’s 5% or less he goes through with the deal. If it’s materially more than 5% he gets to recut the deal, Twitter management has egg on their face, and those who signed the Sarbox docs - CEO and CFO may have major legal and SEC issues on their hands.

If he pulls out and it’s verified that Twitter management knew it was bot heavy, doesn’t that open Twitter to fraud suits by current shareholders?

It's why Elon's bid was so genius from the start and also why we likely saw tons of accounts get removed right after the deal was done.

quote:

---

He knew the count before he went all in

---

So he knew something even the Twitter insiders don’t know? Ok got it.

He may have suspected it but he did not know it.

I will put up my experience in over 200 transactions against yours. He may have believed to 5% number to be BS as most people do, but he didn’t know shite.

It is one of many metrics the deal is tied to from a valuation standpoint and is sop on deals it is not 4D chess.

quote:

---

It’s not 4D chess to make sure the user count is real. That’s what can be monetized and using Twitters own number is the correct measurement.

---

It's pretty well known there's a lot of bots, and it's also very well known in the tech industry M&A and Marketing side of things that you have to cut the number of users, for sites like Twitter (ie..site like this one if up for sale), by a big percentage. And this would be something that can be used as a bargaining chip after you've gotten the right NDA in place to get a better look under the hood.

It would make me think bad of Musk and his team if they were totally surprised by this. Don't know if it's any particular 4D chess plan, but I'm thinking standard bargaining ploy. Could be wrong of course, but really doubt it.

What's interesting is the 2 people Twitter who were let go and this news. A GM of Revenue and Head of Consumer Product. I wonder if these things are connected.

That's a very naive position. We're not talking about the sale of a local newspaper.

We're talking the sale of the most influential social media site on the planet to the richest dude on said planet that has a history of turning everything he touches to gold.

Musk doesn't PUBLICLY ask these questions unless he already knows the answers.

quote:

---

It's pretty well known there's a lot of bots, and it's also very well known in the tech industry M&A and Marketing side of things that you have to cut the number of users

---

Correct. I’m not saying the number is or isn’t inflated (I think it is) I’m saying Musk didn’t know for sure. He made an educated assumption based on all matters and wisely pegged the value to their stated number.

It isn’t some deal making voodoo is my point. It’s just what happens.

I think he might be exposing them for some shenanigans about inflating their user count and activity metrics. Seems like interesting timing given that a couple of senior level folks were just canned.

Eta: looks like this was already covered

quote:

---

No what is naïve is thinking Musk is so all powerful and all knowing he knew something even the people at Twitter with access to the raw data don’t have nailed down.

Musk’s gut may have told him it’s more than 5% (as most people strongly believe) but he does not KNOW that as a fact.

---

It is ironic that you make these statements about what Musk did or did not know as if you yourself know it for fact, rather than it being your gut feeling.