this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
327 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
79576 readers
6623 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t see how. This is just a continuation of what he was already doing, facilitated by a board of his friends and relatives.
Even worse I have to say I’m not totally against it. All too often ceos get excessive pay regardless of their results. While I haven’t looked in detail not at the history, the claim is these are only for Tesla meeting some extremely ambitious milestones and the payment is stock. Certainly his previous ridiculous allay was in stock and Tesla had some extraordinary growth. If the stock doesn’t go up, then he should never receive that wealth
If it’s truly contingent on the company growth and the board doesn’t throw him a life preserver, that’s not entirely bad. Excessive yes. Extremely excessive. Excessively excessive. But more execs need to have their wealth gated on actual results
The thing that makes it more suspect IMO is that shareholders voted for it, not just the board. Courts specifically said they didn't need to but shareholders (dominated by large account holders) still voted for it.