I believe that Elon Musk’s compensation package will haunt Tesla for years as lawsuits are already piling up.
Everyone is pointing fingers at who they think is responsible for this situation. Here’s my take.
We are less than two weeks away from Tesla’s annual shareholders meeting during which we will know the results of the shareholder vote on Musk’s compensation package and incorporation move to Texas.
Many shareholders falsely believe that the issue will end there.
Shareholders will vote either for or against these two proposals. The truth is that not much will change after June 13th.
If shareholders vote yes again on the package, at best, it will be used as evidence that shareholders still support the deal for the appeal process in the case, which is still months away.
The next step is a hearing over the compensation that the lawyers for the shareholder who sued Musk and Tesla are asking for, which is a ridiculous $6 billion.
The compensation will likely be greatly reduced by the judge, but they will likely still get a nice payday, and the vultures are already circling to get more.
A new lawsuit was filed last week against Musk and Tesla directors over alleged insider trading by the CEO and breach of fiduciary duty by board members.
Regardless of the results of the votes later this month, Tesla will likely face other lawsuits regarding its corporate governance, which is being increasingly exposed by Tesla and Musk’s reaction to the judge’s decision over his compensation package.
I think I managed to distill my thoughts on Elon’s compensation package at Tesla into something a little clearer. I have been reporting on this for months, and I’m tired of it, but unfortunately, I think it will be a story for months, if not years, to come
Like many Tesla shareholders, I wasn’t happy about Elon selling shares from his previous CEO compensation package to buy Twitter.
But I understand that it is his right to do so.
He can do what he wants with his money, but he did lose credibility in my eyes because I remember him saying this:
He got a lot of people to believe in Tesla through commitments like this and then he broke it to buy Twitter of all things.
But Fred, that’s old.
OK, he also said this:
And then sold billions of dollars worth of Tesla shares in the following months.
All good. It’s not great for his credibility, but again, his money.
Now, what about this new 2018 compensation plan?
Do I really believe Elon is looking for 25% control of Tesla because he is scared of what Tesla’s AI will do if he has less control? No. I don’t buy that for a second.
Am I worried that he will dump his shares in a very poorly planned manner like he did the first time? Yes, I am.
But once again, it is his money, sort of, and he can do whatever he wants with it. I think he did incredible work at Tesla, especially between 2018 and 2021. He deserves it.
However, I can believe all that and still understand why Judge McCormick had to invalidate the package in her decision.
There’s no doubt that this litigation started because lawyers saw an opportunity to make money. They enlisted a willing Tesla shareholder with just 9 shares. But you have to ask yourself, why was there an opportunity?
And that’s because of Elon and Tesla’s board. They saw that Tesla’s board presented the package as being negotiated between independent board members and Elon. They looked into those directors and saw that they were anything but independent.
The only board member on the compensation committee who could have been described as independent would have been Robin Denholm. She became Tesla’s chairwoman after Musk had to give up the seat as part of a settlement with the SEC over his botched attempt to take Tesla private, but she was also getting a juicy compensation package worth tens of millions of dollars for a job that Elon himself said was worthless.
Suspicious.
The lawyers made a bet that, based on this situation, they would find a lot more problems with how this historic compensation package came about, and they were right.
They found problems like the board not negotiating the package beyond aligning the tranches with Tesla’s own projections, Elon’s point person on the package being his own divorce lawyer who was also Tesla’s general counsel at the time—blurring the lines as to who he was actually working for, and more.
These are all things that could have affected shareholders’ decisions on whether to vote for or against the package. The judge had to rescind it.
But instead of addressing the governance issues highlighted by the judge and that led to this situation in the first place, Tesla, evidently led by Elon, decided to push a narrative that there’s no issue and that the only reason we shareholders are in this situation is that a politically motivated judge decided to take away our right to decide for ourselves what Elon should get for compensation.
Massive claims like that need strong evidence and as far as I can tell, there’s no strong evidence that the judge did anything other than follow the law. The only thing I’ve seen posted by Elon and his fans is the fact that the judge used to work for a firm that represented President Biden in the past, but it was one of the biggest firms in Delaware, which is where Biden is from so it’s not surprising and doesn’t prove any wrongdoing.
This narrative about the situation being politically motivated is simply an attempt to ignore and divert attention from Tesla’s governance issues.
At this point, I think Tesla and its shareholders would be way better off addressing these issues, going back to the drawing table on a compensation deal that is negotiated in good faith, and then going back to shareholders for a vote.
I even think that the deal could be the same amount minus all the costs that Tesla incurred related to this issue, like the legal costs and all the advertising that the company is spending on this vote.
The alternative is, more likely than not, years of costly litigation and this dark cloud over Tesla.
But a big part of the problem is that it doesn’t seem that Elon is interested in establishing proper governance at Tesla because he is not well suited to be an officer in a public company. That’s partly why he tried to take Tesla private – poorly, I might add.
Based on the rumors he is choosing not to deny, he seems to be happy leaving this choice to shareholders: proper corporate governance at Tesla or Elon. You can’t have both.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Forget fumbling with cables or hunting for batteries – TILER is making electric bike charging as seamless as parking your ride. The Dutch startup recently introduced its much-anticipated TILER Compact system, a plug-and-play wireless charger engineered to transform the user experience for e-bike riders.
At the heart of the new system is a clever combo: a charging kickstand that mounts directly to almost any e‑bike, and a thin charging mat that you simply park over. Once you drop the kickstand and it lands on the mat, the bike begins charging automatically via inductive transfer – no cable required. According to TILER, a 500 Wh battery will fully charge in about 3.5 hours, delivering comparable performance to traditional wired chargers.
It’s an elegantly simple concept (albeit a bit chunky) with a convenient upside: less clutter, fewer broken cables, and no more need to bend over while feeling around for a dark little hole.
TILER claims its system works with about 75% of existing e‑bike platforms, including those from Bosch, Yamaha, Bafang, and other big bames. The kit uses a modest 150 W wireless power output, which means charging speeds remain practical while keeping the system lightweight (the tile weighs just 2 kg, and it’s also stationary).
Advertisement – scroll for more content
TILER has already deployed over 200 charging points across Western Europe, primarily serving bike-share, delivery, hospitality, and hotel fleets. A recent case study in Munich showed how a cargo-bike operator saved approximately €1,250 per month in labor costs, avoided thousands in spare batteries, and cut battery damage by 20%. The takeaway? Less maintenance, more uptime.
Now shifting to prosumer markets, TILER says the Compact system will hit pre-orders soon, with a €250 price tag (roughly US $290) for the kickstand plus tile bundle. To get in line, a €29 refundable deposit is currently required, though they say it is refundable at any point until you receive your charger. Don’t get too excited just yet though, there’s a bit of a wait. Deliveries are expected in summer 2026, and for now are covering mostly European markets.
The concept isn’t entirely new. We’ve seen the idea pop up before, including in a patent from BMW for charging electric motorcycles. And the efficacy is there. Skeptics may wonder if wireless charging is slower or less efficient, but TILER says no. Its system retains over 85% efficiency, nearly matching wired charging speeds, and even pauses at 80% to protect battery health, then resumes as needed. The tile is even IP67-rated, safe for outdoor use, and about as bulky as a thick magazine.
Electrek’s Take
I love the concept. It makes perfect sense for shared e-bikes, especially since they’re often returning to a dock anyway. As long as people can be trained to park with the kickstand on the tile, it seems like a no-brainer.
And to be honest, I even like the idea for consumers. I know it sounds like a first-world problem, but bending over to plug something in at floor height is pretty annoying, not to mention a great way to throw out your back if you’re not exactly a spring chicken anymore. Having your e-bike start charging simply by parking it in the right place is a really cool feature! I don’t know if it’s $300 cool, but it’s pretty cool!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla has launched a new software update for its vehicles that includes the anticipated integration of Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car yet.
Today, Tesla started pushing the update to the fleet, but there’s a significant caveat.
The automaker wrote in the release notes (2025.26):
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Grok (Beta) (US, AMD)
Grok now available directly in your Tesla
Requires Premium Connectivity or a WiFi connection
Grok is currently in Beta & does not issue commands to your car – existing voice commands remain unchanged.
First off, it is only available in vehicles in the US equipped with the AMD infotainment computer, which means cars produced since mid-2021.
But more importantly, Tesla says that it doesn’t send commands to the car under the current version. Therefore, it is simply like having Grok on your phone, but on the onboard computer instead.
Tesla showed an example:
There are a few other features in the 2025.26 software update, but they are not major.
For Tesla vehicles equipped with ambient lighting strips inside the car, the light strip can now sync to music:
Accent lights now respond to music & you can also choose to match the lights to the album’s color for a more immersive effect
Toybox > Light Sync
Here’s the new setting:
The audio setting can now be saved under multiple presets to match listening preferences for different people or circumstances:
The software update also includes the capacity to zoom or adjust the playback speed of the Dashcam Viewer.
Cybertruck also gets the updated Dashcam Viewer app with a grid view for easier access and review of recordings:
Tesla also updated the charging info in its navigation system to be able to search which locations require valet service or pay-to-park access.
Upon arrival, drivers will receive a notification with access codes, parking restrictions, level or floor information, and restroom availability:
Finally, there’s a new onboarding guide directly on the center display to help people who are experiencing a Tesla vehicle for the first time.
Electrek’s Take
Tesla is really playing catch-up here. Right now, this update is essentially nothing. If you already have Grok, it’s no more different than having it on your phone or through the vehicle’s browser, since it has no capacity to interact with any function inside the vehicle.
Most other automakers are integrating LLMs inside vehicles with the capacity to interact with the vehicle. In China, this is becoming standard even in entry-level cars.
In the Xiaomi YU7, the vehicle’s AI can not only interact with the car, but it also sees what the car sees through its camera, and it can tell you about what it sees:
Tesla is clearly far behind on that front as many automakers are integrating with other LLMs like ChatGPT and in-house LLMs, like Xiaomi’s.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Robinhood stock hit an all-time high Friday as the financial services platform continued to rip higher this year, along with bitcoin and other crypto stocks.
Robinhood, up more than 160% in 2025, hit an intraday high above $101 before pulling back and closing slightly lower.
The reversal came after a Bloomberg report that JPMorgan plans to start charging fintechs for access to customer bank data, a move that could raise costs across the industry.
For fintech firms that rely on thin margins to offer free or low-cost services to customers, even slight disruptions to their cost structure can have major ripple effects. PayPal and Affirm both ended the day nearly 6% lower following the report.
Despite its stellar year, the online broker is facing several headwinds, with a regulatory probe in Florida, pushback over new staking fees and growing friction with one of the world’s most high-profile artificial intelligence companies.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier opened a formal investigation into Robinhood Crypto on Thursday, alleging the platform misled users by claiming to offer the lowest-cost crypto trading.
“Robinhood has long claimed to be the best bargain, but we believe those representations were deceptive,” Uthmeier said in a statement.
The probe centers on Robinhood’s use of payment for order flow — a common practice where market makers pay to execute trades — which the AG said can result in worse pricing for customers.
Robinhood Crypto General Counsel Lucas Moskowitz told CNBC its disclosures are “best-in-class” and that it delivers the lowest average cost.
“We disclose pricing information to customers during the lifecycle of a trade that clearly outlines the spread or the fees associated with the transaction, and the revenue Robinhood receives,” added Moskowitz.
Robinhood is also facing opposition to a new 25% cut of staking rewards for U.S. users, set to begin October 1. In Europe, the platform will take a smaller 15% cut.
Staking allows crypto holders to earn yield by locking up their tokens to help secure blockchain networks like ethereum, but platforms often take a percentage of those rewards as commission.
Robinhood’s 25% cut puts it in line with Coinbase, which charges between 25.25% and 35% depending on the token. The cut is notably higher than Gemini’s flat 15% fee.
It marks a shift for the company, which had previously steered clear of staking amid regulatory uncertainty.
Under President Joe Biden‘s administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission cracked down on U.S. platforms offering staking services, arguing they constituted unregistered securities.
With President Donald Trump in the White House, the agency has reversed course on several crypto enforcement actions, dropping cases against major players like Coinbase and Binance and signaling a more permissive stance.
Even as enforcement actions ease, Robinhood is under fresh scrutiny for its tokenized stock push, which is a growing part of its international strategy.
The company now offers blockchain-based assets in Europe that give users synthetic exposure to private firms like OpenAI and SpaceX through special purpose vehicles, or SPVs.
An SPV is a separate entity that acquires shares in a company. Users then buy tokens of the SPV and don’t have shareholder privileges or voting rights directly in the company.
OpenAI has publicly objected, warning the tokens do not represent real equity and were issued without its approval. In an interview with CNBC International, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged the tokens aren’t technically equity shares, but said that misses the broader point.
“What’s important is that retail customers have an opportunity to get exposure to this asset,” he said, pointing to the disruptive nature of AI and the historically limited access to pre-IPO companies.
“It is true that these are not technically equity,” Tenev added, noting that institutional investors often gain similar exposure through structured financial instruments.
The Bank of Lithuania — Robinhood’s lead regulator in the EU — told CNBC on Monday that it is “awaiting clarifications” following OpenAI’s statement.
“Only after receiving and evaluating this information will we be able to assess the legality and compliance of these specific instruments,” a spokesperson said, adding that information for investors must be “clear, fair, and non-misleading.”
Tenev responded that Robinhood is “happy to continue to answer questions from our regulators,” and said the company built its tokenized stock program to withstand scrutiny.
“Since this is a new thing, regulators are going to want to look at it,” he said. “And we expect to be scrutinized as a large, innovative player in this space.”
SEC Chair Paul Atkins recently called the model “an innovation” on CNBC’s Squawk Box, offering some validation as Robinhood leans further into its synthetic equity strategy — even as legal clarity remains in flux across jurisdictions.
Despite the regulatory noise, many investors remain focused on Robinhood’s upside, and particularly the political tailwinds.
The company is positioning itself as a key beneficiary of Trump’s newly signed megabill, which includes $1,000 government-seeded investment accounts for newborns. Robinhood said it’s already prototyping an app for the ‘Trump Accounts‘ initiative.