As with TSLA, the current numbers don't make sense, so the stock price is purely speculation about explosive future growth.
What makes less sense is the way progressives want to tax people based on purely speculative value as if it were dollar bills.
The point is to take power away from people who can now tell you what to do because they have too much money which is no longer property it's power.
Except it's not money, you just think it is because you don't know (or more likely don't understand/comprehend) what the difference is.
I've been offered exactly this for my shares, and yes, the terms aren't as good as progressives usually think. The motivation behind it primarily is to give you liquidity for everyday expenses without having to sell your shares, which also means you get to keep any gains on them, which tends to benefit you a lot more in the long run, but is not even remotely guaranteed.
You only get somewhere around a fifth or a quarter of the current price of the stock, and if the stock falls in value so much, you'll get socked with a margin call. If you can't pay it, the bank then sells your shares, which violates your equity agreement with the company, which will probably make you ineligible for more shares from your existing grants, and assuming you're eligible for more share grants, your future grants will be lower, meaning you also lose future income.
It's a calculated risk, not a tax dodge or a handout. If you treat it as those, you'll probably be disappointed. In a few posts above, rsilvergun was complaining about how this isn't available to him and people like him -- and that's really for his own good. Same reason the SEC won't allow him to buy into private equity, even if it was offered to him. The law is designed to protect him. In theory, he could do it eventually, but he'd have to somehow prove that he's not a total moron when it comes to finance. But given he's a moron when it comes to virtually everything...good luck with that.
Once the 180 day lockout ends
His lockout is 366 days. For 100% of his shares. Full stop.
The employees and early investors get to begin selling shares in as little as a month from now, with the rest gradually becoming available over time, and all of it by 180 days.
Any shares "based on hitting certain performance objectives" are in addition, and would dilute the existing shares.
This is how it's done everywhere, including for regular employee shares.
Jumpstarting the electric vehicle industry worldwide where countless others failed before him, is abusing the system?
Building the most successful space entity in the world, making the next frontier more accessible to the masses, is abusing the system?
How you figure?
Wear. It is similar to a charge cycle.
It's not. The V2G use is incredibly shallow and while it "wears" the battery, it does so at a completely irrelevant pace.
If it did that daily for even something small like 20kWh, that would be more than 7 times as much wear as my average weekly driving. No thanks.
Given the lengths of your average weekly driving it would result in your car going from being scrapped due to mechanical defects to being scrapped due to mechanical defects. 20kWh daily load on a vehicle is not out of the ordinary for drivers representing a round trip slightly above the average daily commute distance. Data from the taxi industry has conclusively shown that you can put 4x that energy cycle on your battery every day and your battery will still outlive your car.
We call that line of thought, and the ecosystem surrounding it, "old space". It's unnecessary, incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and end result isn't even very good. Unless...are these components being placed directly into space? If so...why on earth...erm...in space...would you do such a thing? COTS components can work fine. And no, I don't mean putting big lead blocks into space or anything silly like that. The internet has much to say about the way Falcon does it.
The ESA spends years, often over a decade, overengineering and certifying components. By the time they're ready for production, the private sector is already a generation or two ahead. A Starlink satellite can undergo a complete product lifecycle, from design proposal to end of life, in the time it takes the ESA to certify a single component, let alone a complete product. I really don't believe the ESA has the capacity to move past this either because it's bound by politics. What I mean by that is, you're never going to get out of the trap of having to design and build everything across 20 (or whatever it is) different member states, and all the logistical baggage that drags along with it. NASA has a similar constraint.
The private sector only has one real constraint: Whatever is good enough to meet all mission parameters with near 100% degree of certainty.
This is exactly why NASA, ESA, JAXA, and many other government space entities end up contracting with the American private sector rather than rely entirely on their own designs.
>"The additional ware is minimal,"
Wear. It is similar to a charge cycle. And that absolutely wears the battery. How much will depend on how much power and for how long and how often. If it did that daily for even something small like 20kWh, that would be more than 7 times as much wear as my average weekly driving. No thanks.
>"There's zero risk involved. It's your EV. You set the parameters of how much can and can't be discharged"
As long as the customer has full control, then that is probably acceptable for many.
It should never pass if it permits violating Americans' 4th amendment rights.
Starship is likely pretty close to that, but I'm curious to see your math.
Done some integrated circuit design for ESA. Electronics circuits do not like space.
Are trying to tell me the ESA just now figuring this out?
Nice theory, but back in reality:
- The additional ware is minimal, the V2G current is minor compared to you stepping on the accelerator or the brake. These systems already exist (GM is late to the party here) and there's no evidence of massive car battery degredation.
- There's zero risk involved. It's your EV. You set the parameters of how much can and can't be discharged. If your car is empty it's because you fucked up.
- Depending on rates the payment for dynamic energy export can be incredibly lucrative.
- Downgrading range is okay for many people. People masturbating over range numbers are ultimately those who are unable to apply thought to their situation. Yeah there are those who need a long range vehicle, but the vast majority of people don't. (My own car is 30% full right now, and I just can't be fucked to go plug it in, I'll probably plug in at work on Monday or Tuesday.) A car with half the range will still be just as suitable for me and 99% of people out there.
Why? Do you drive 150miles to work? My car battery is currently 30% full, well below half, and I can't be fucked going to plug it in. I'll probably do that on Tuesday. In any case, all V2G systems are user configurable. If you are dismayed it's because you yourself screwed up and set the system to allow it to discharger more than you wanted. You should go tell yourself to stand in the corner and think about what you did.
and that GM took profit out of that, to boot!
100% of V2G setups result in the end user getting paid for electricity. The fact that a middleman makes profit is hypocritical, especially in America where you can't even fathom the idea of buying something without having a credit card company sitting in between.
Why would you throw out your car if it has a dead battery but be okay with replacing a stationary battery?
" dismantle the apparatus"
"also giving Trump a powerful tool "
I see what you did there...
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.
