Tesla CEO and Twitter chief Elon Musk has clarified that Sam Bankman-Fried, former CEO of collapsed crypto change FTX, doesn’t personal any stake in Twitter. This adopted an article revealed by a Bankman-Fried-backed publication suggesting that Musk took $100 million from the previous FTX govt.
Elon Musk on SBF’s Alleged Funding in Twitter
Elon Musk has clarified that Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), FTX’s co-founder and former CEO, at the moment owns 0% of Twitter.
The affirmation adopted an article revealed Wednesday by Bankman-Fried-backed publication Semafor indicating that SBF owns a $100 million stake within the social media platform. The article claimed to have obtained a non-public textual content message between Musk and Bankman-Fried as proof of the stake.
Semafor debuted on Oct 18, only a few weeks earlier than the FTX meltdown began. The crypto change filed for Chapter 11 chapter on Nov. 11 and SBF stepped down because the CEO.
Musk tweeted Wednesday: “Semafor is owned by SBF. This can be a large conflict of interest in your reporting.” Responding to an editor of the publication insisting that he took cash from SBF, Musk tweeted:
As I stated, neither I nor Twitter have taken any funding from SBF/FTX. Your article is a lie.
The editor of the SBF-backed publication tweeted the textual content message in query Thursday. Within the textual content message, Bankman-Fried claimed to have over $100 million in Twitter (TWTR) shares that he would love “to roll” if doable. Musk responded with a regular reply he gave to all Twitter shareholders. “You’re welcome to roll,” he wrote. Nonetheless, the textual content message doesn’t verify whether or not the transaction occurred.
Semafor’s reporter took the textual content message as affirmation that Bankman-Fried positively owns a $100 million stake in Twitter, and did when Musk bought the social media firm on the finish of October and took it non-public.
Musk responded clarifying that every one public shareholders of the social media firm had been allowed to roll their inventory into Twitter as a non-public firm. Nonetheless, the Tesla boss famous that Bankman-Fried didn’t roll something over, so he owns no stake in Twitter. “Your reporting made it falsely sound like he did.”
The article additionally claimed that Musk texted Bankman-Fried and “invited him to roll the $100 million stake.” Nonetheless, it seems from the textual content message that it was SBF who texted Musk and the Tesla CEO didn’t even know who the textual content message was from.
Many individuals on Twitter agreed with Musk that the textual content message doesn’t show that SBF truly rolled any shares into Twitter, the non-public firm. One person described:
Seems like he [Elon Musk] didn’t actually know whom he was speaking to, and was simply giving the identical reply he gave publicly — that enormous shareholders might roll over their shares to the brand new enterprise. Musk has denied that it ever truly occurred, too.
Twitter customers additionally attacked the SBF-backed publication for its battle of curiosity. “Its extraordinarily wild how they’ll assault ANYONE inside proximity to SBF however then go away him untouched or barely scraped with slight criticism that it’s important to learn like 3-Four occasions over once more earlier than it seems like criticism,” one identified. One other person requested: “How a lot cash did Semafor take from SBF and what did that monetary settlement entail? That appears essential.”
What do you consider the SBF-backed publication claiming that Bankman-Fried gave Elon Musk $100 million despite the fact that Musk stated repeatedly that he didn’t? Tell us within the feedback part beneath.
Picture Credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This text is for informational functions solely. It isn’t a direct supply or solicitation of a proposal to purchase or promote, or a suggestion or endorsement of any merchandise, providers, or firms. Bitcoin.com doesn’t present funding, tax, authorized, or accounting recommendation. Neither the corporate nor the writer is accountable, straight or not directly, for any injury or loss induced or alleged to be brought on by or in reference to the usage of or reliance on any content material, items or providers talked about on this article.