Connect with us

Published

on

I fully divested from Tesla (TSLA), selling all my shares. I’m going to try to explain why. At Electrek, we like to be clear about our biases rather than claim we have none.

I’ve followed Tesla since 2008 and invested in the company after it went public in 2010. I started writing about EVs, and especially Tesla, full-time in 2015.

I invested in the stock mainly because I fully supported Tesla’s mission to accelerate the advent of electric transportation. I thought then, and still do today, that a combination of battery-powered vehicles, with the ethical sourcing of raw battery materials, battery recycling, and renewable electricity production to power electric vehicles, is the only solution to making the transportation sector long-term sustainable while decarbonizing it.

Over the years, I had become a fan of electric vehicles, but I was clueless about how they could become mainstream until I read Elon Musk’s 2006 ‘Tesla secret master plan’. The plan made sense to me: make a high-end electric vehicle that is uncompromising against its gas-powered counterparts. Once you prove that it can be done, make increasingly cheaper and higher-volume EV models with the same approach.

That sounds simple, but it was a difficult task from an engineering perspective. Either way, it seemed to be the only way to meaningfully move the industry toward battery-electric vehicles.

On top of Musk’s blog post, which Tesla has recently removed from its website, I was also convinced by lectures given by Tesla’s original two co-founders, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.

While these guys have been forgotten by many as part of Tesla’s history, partly due to Musk’s own effort, I credit them as early pioneers of the electric revolution. They were great early communicators of the feasibility of electrifying the auto industry and the necessity to do it.

Not without hurdles, Tesla did it. I am not going to recap Tesla’s entire incredible history, but the company was successful in convincing the world and the auto industry that electric vehicles are here, here to stay, and the future of the industry — something that most were denying less than a decade ago.

Tesla engineered and designed several highly competitive and attractive EV products, managed to ramp them up to millions of units, and forced the rest of the industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in electric vehicles.

This was possible due to a lot of different factors. A lot:

  • The vision of Tesla’s early leadership
  • Elon Musk’s early funding and leadership
  • The incredible talent that the mission attracted, including many early employees that became critical to Tesla, like JB Straubel, Drew Baglino, Deepak Ahuja, Franz von Holzhausen, and many more
  • The support of early investors like Antonio Gracias, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Jeff Skoll, and Steve Jurvetson, among others
  • The support from other automakers, like Daimler and Toyota, who both invested in Tesla at a critical time
  • Government support was a big one, especially California’s support. California regulations, which spread to other states in the US known as ‘CARB states’, were critical in Tesla’s early success and were also factors in Daimler and Toyota’s investments as the automakers made deals with Tesla to help them produce EVs to comply with the state regulations. Later, the federal EV tax credit helped, the IRA helped, the solar tax credit, and more also helped.
  • The support from passionate owners
  • The support from passionate retail investors

I’m most likely forgetting some factors, but these are some of the most important ones, in my opinion.

Many will say that they weren’t equally important, and that might be true, but I seriously doubt that Tesla would have survived if you removed any of these factors.

If you contributed to any of these factors, it’s my personal opinion that you should be proud to have contributed to the electrification of the auto industry.

The Shift

In the last few years, Tesla has become a widely different company. My main issue with this shift is that I no longer feel like the original mission to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport or renewable energy is a priority.

Now, it’s all about AI, self-driving, and robots.

I’m not saying that those things are wrong or that they will not happen. I think all these technologies are important and will transform the world, but it’s simply not what I invested in.

I would also argue that Tesla is not the same company, which makes sense since the company is no longer about its mission.

That’s my main issue. It can’t be more evident than Tesla’s EV deliveries tracking down year-over-year for the first time in a decade, Musk canceling EV programs in favor of Robotaxi, and even the CEO going as far as saying that “Tesla is worth nothing without self-driving.”

My other issue is the leadership. I don’t trust Elon Musk anymore. I think a combination of social media addiction and the cult of personality around him has broken his feedback loop and set him on the wrong path.

I think he disqualified himself from running Tesla or any public company when he started threatening to breach his fiduciary duty to shareholders if he didn’t get 25% control over Tesla.

On top of my distrust of the CEO, I think that his own changes in the last few years, combined with the shift away from the mission, have driven a lot of the rest of the leadership away:

As part of my job, I track the comings and goings of top talent at Tesla very closely, and in the last few years, I’ve seen tons of high-level departures and very few new top hires.

There’s still a lot of great talent at Tesla, I’m not denying that, but I think it’s also clear that there has been a significant talent exodus at Tesla, especially over the last year.

Despite these issues becoming clear to me over the last few years, I remained a shareholder because I naively thought things could go back to normal. I thought maybe Musk would wake up from his social media-fueled madness, or shareholders would give him the boot.

This brings me to my next issue: I am becoming unaligned with the majority of Tesla shareholders.

It couldn’t have been clearer when 73% of them voted to reinstate Musk’s ~$50 billion compensation package without any change after a legal discovery process showed that the board and the CEO didn’t follow due process in getting the original shareholder vote.

Some greedy lawyers and a courageous judge gave Tesla shareholders an opportunity to tell Musk and Tesla’s board that the company deserves proper governance and not be “run like a family business,” as Tesla’s largest independent investor said.

The timing was incredible. The opportunity came right after:

  • Musk threatened shareholders to not build products he himself claimed were critical to Tesla if he didn’t get 25% of the company
  • He sold tens of billions of dollars worth of Tesla shares to buy Twitter, said he would stop selling and yet kept going
  • He entirely lost his mind for a while and challenged Mark Zuckerberg to an MMA fight, then chickened out (I thought this was all a joke at first, and it might have been at first, but it undoubtedly became not a joke)
  • Musk seemed completely uninterested in Tesla for about a year, when he was running Twitter, SpaceX, Neurallink, the Boring Company, and xAI – with many of those companies recruiting from Tesla. Then, he returned and fired 15-20% of the company, including the entire charging team for no good reason.
  • Finally, he canceled the stock options of Tesla employees

The last one was a big one for me. Musk had just canceled the stock options for Tesla employees just a month before the judge’s decision to rescind his own stock option package. Right after the judge’s decision, Musk got interested in Tesla again, started talking about the company more, and, of course, started to fight to get his own stock options back.

In his view, his stock options are essential, but those of Tesla employees? Less so.

I thought that Tesla shareholders would see the hypocrisy in this. They would see that Musk has become a burden at Tesla more than an asset.

Instead, despite all those factors, Tesla shareholders convinced themselves that it was “the right thing to do” to give more money to the wealthiest man in the world. Not only that, they made “lists” of shareholders who said they were voting against the package and told them to go ‘f*ck’ themselves and that they wouldn’t be part of the Tesla community anymore.

I don’t want to be a part of that anymore. I still love many of Tesla’s products and I will keep reporting on them, but I am completely unaligned with the investor base, so I don’t think it makes sense for me to be a shareholder anymore.

Finally, and for full disclosure, the last reason why I sold has nothing to do with Tesla. I see a lot of signs that we are entering a recession. I prefer to be more liquid in those situations, and Tesla is up 10% in two days for seemingly no reason, so it felt like a good time to get out since I don’t feel aligned with shareholders.

I sincerely hope the best for them, though. I know that many of them are well-intentioned people. That said, I recommend caution as I think you are also in the company of low-moral individuals who are poisoning the TSLA community.

FSD side note: what if Tesla does solve self-driving? I am mentioning it because I know this is something that keeps a lot of people in, but there’s no FOMO for this MOFO. If it happens, it happens. I’ll celebrate it and shed a tear for my wallet.

I’m the first to admit that if Tesla can solve self-driving with its approach, it would result in unprecedented value creation, but I am simply not convinced that this will happen anytime soon or before others can solve it.

Why? As a Tesla shareholder, you have two options: take Elon at his word or trust the data.

For the reasons mentioned above, I don’t trust what Elon says, so we can forget about the former.

As for the latter, despite Tesla now openly using miles between interventions as a metric to track FSD progress, the automaker has never released this data. This is a giant red flag.

For the data, we have to rely on our own experience with the system and the experience of others. I’ve had Tesla FSD for years and I’ve been impressed at times and unimpressed other times. The only thing I’m certain of based on my experience is that it is currently nothing close to an unsupervised self-driving system.

We can also use the crowdsourced data, which is limited, but the best we have since Tesla refuses to release its own:

The average of the v12.5.1 versions, the latest to be released, is 32 miles between disengagement and 128 miles between critical disengagement.

This compares to 30 miles between disengagement and 189 miles between critical disengagement for v12.3.6, which is the last FSD version that went into a wide release earlier this year.

Elon is talking about 3x that this month and maybe 6x that next month. He has been consistently wrong about these predictions, but even if he was right, most experts are talking about 400x to 1,000x needed to achieve an unsupervised robotaxi service.

Even with exponential growth, this will take way longer than what Elon is claiming right now. Then, it needs to make that work on the current hardware and the HW3, which is already running a smaller model than HW4.

If the Tesla investment thesis relies on this program to work, which is what Elon himself is saying, it’s a pass for me.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Published

on

By

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

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.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches new software update with Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car

Published

on

By

Tesla launches new software update with Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car

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.

Earlier this week, CEO Elon Musk said that Tesla would integrate Grok, the large language model developed by his private company, xAI, into its vehicles.

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.

Continue Reading

Environment

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Published

on

By

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Florida AG opens probe into Robinhood. Here's the latest

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 CEO Vlad Tenev explains 'dual purpose' behind trading platform's new crypto offerings

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.

JPMorgan announces plans to charge for access to customer bank data

“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.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Watch CNBC's full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Continue Reading

Trending