[pqtyw]

> quite clearly

X is "clearly" worth only $10 billion less than what Musk paid for Twitter back 2022? Really? Despite its revenue being 50% lower than it was back then?

As for xAI, Anthropic has a valuation of ~$60 billion. So again not that "clear". Of course they don't have Musk's political connections which might end up mattering quite a bit (of course there's also the risk of Musk being prosecuted in 4 years as well...)

[permo-w]

?

>quite clearly ... in the region of

[pqtyw]

like +-50% or more? That's a very wide region.

[permo-w]

first of all, Anthropic is hardly more successful than xAI. they get a lot of headlines, but how many people actually use Claude? and what else do they have going for them? as far as I've seen and heard Grok is just as successful if not more.

second of all, I would suggest that twitter's value as a whole is very nebulously related to its actual revenue numbers, and is far more related to: - its potential revenue numbers, which are way higher in the hands of someone less controversial and - profit, which we don't really know about because its private anyway, but is likely much higher given the amount of cuts that have been made.

[pqtyw]

> s I've seen and heard Grok is just as successful if not more.

Most of what I've seen about Grok were the various memes about people trying to trick it into saying stuff about Musk (or trying to expose the filters stopping it from saying bad things about him).

> its potential revenue numbers

Maybe. But it wasn't even that successful financial even in the pre Musk days compared to its competitors. Destroying the brand and reputation also had a non-insignficant impact.

> but is likely much higher

Twitter was barely or not at all profitable before the acquisition so that's not unlikely. Companies that have high net income but stagnant or decreasing revenue generally don't do that well in the stock market, though.