"Over the weekend, a glitch on the platform meant that the site removed pictures and links on posts made before December 2014. The posts showed broken links instead of the pictures and videos that were previously there.
Several users noticed the glitch, with the technologist Tom Coates among those pointing it out. Coates referred to the glitch as “epic vandalism by Musk” and suggested it could be a cost-saving exercise."
Out of 46.5 billion total cost, 27 billion was out of Musk’s pocket. 13 billion were bank loans, most as a leveraged buyout so technically Twitter owes the banks, but the banks do not own shares. 5.2 billion, only a little more than 10% came from other sources. The biggest is 1.89 billion from the Saudi Prince, but those are just his previously owned shares that he decided to keep. It wasn’t a new investment. He obviously has influence (same as he did before the acquisition) but I doubt he’s giving marching orders with less than 5% stake. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-is-financing-elon-musk-s-us-44-billion-deal-to-buy-twitter-1.6100579?
You’re thinking like a shareholder.
A very rich friend helped out a very rich man, who now owes him a favor…