Thanks. That’s a surprising value.
There’s this old story about time he told Ivanka that a homeless guy was richer than he was, because he was so deep in debt.
It generally is also where you wind up on a misdemeanor conviction, as much as a year.
That’s an insane valuation. $10 billion for a social network based around one person? What’s its value if he loses, or dies, or in five years after he wins and retires? Why would anyone be on Truth Social in ten years?
I guess if MAGA becomes a permanent thing it might be a MAGA hive, but that can’t possibly be worth much in a global marketplace. American users are a fraction of most social network’s audiences.
And I thought Twitter getting rid of censorship would kill Truth Social’s very need for existence. Strange.
I think you misunderstood the situation in the first place if you thought censorship was driving Truth Social’s existence.
Or Elon Musk’s Twitter, for that matter.
What drove Truth Social was Trump getting kicked off of Twitter. Musk reinstated his account. There was a lot of speculation about whther Trump would come back and shut down Teuth Social, stay on TS, or do both.
And yes, there was a lot of censorship of the right on Twitter, and not so much now. So there should be less pressure to go somewhere else. I assume that Trump himself is the draw, which is why I wonder what happens to TS when he’s gone. I certainly wouldn’t be a long-term investor. Maybe this a pre-election pump and dump, hoping to capture the animal spirits of the moment.
Moderating:
And yet another hijack started and continued by @Sam_Stone. Continue it at your peril of receiving another warning.
To all, take discussions of jail v. prison time, Hollywood Walk of Fame stars and the proper valuation of XTwitter elsewhere. It’s fine to discuss valuations of Truth Social as it pertains to Trump’s ability to satisfy the judgment imposed in this case.
Op-ed by former NY Mayor de Blasio:
And another article, this one from Politico, about how enforcement works, and what options Trump may have.
In light of the speculation that he wants to use the RNC as his personal piggy bank, the final line of the article is interesting:
The Republican National Committee doesn’t have the same ban on the personal use of funds as Trump’s campaign committee, but paying Trump’s judgments could jeopardize its nonprofit status.
I just learned, seemed credible(ish) that Truth Social is worth ten billion (???). So fuck that guy. Pay up.
Trying not to cross the line here, Aspenglow, but I recall that Theranos was valued at 10B for awhile. I’d assume that was a reasonable valuation IF a bunch of things that were presented as being true had, in fact, been true. I’d also assume that if someone had tried to sell it for 10B, even before the government scrutiny, that due diligence would have rapidly revealed the flawed valuation. I’d also assume the same, as my default, for anything with Trump’s name or fingerprints on it.
You’re fine.
Anything pertaining to Trump’s assets or lack of same, that he can use or you speculate he can use to satisfy this judgment against him, are completely within bounds to discuss.
Subjects like jail v. prison and when one applies or doesn’t (this is a civil case, remember), stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and how they come to be there, anything to do with XTwitter or why it “got rid of censorship” are outside the bounds of the discussion for purposes of this thread.
Thanks for being mindful of it.
Overstated value and Fraud seems to go hand in hand with Trump. “Can I pay for this with gifs of me dressed as a cowboy or batman?”
My recollection is that one of the terms of Trump’s deal with Truth Social is that he will post there exclusively, and not go back to X-Twitter. That probably accounts (in part) for the high valuation? But if Trump were to keel over tomorrow, the value might be affected.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that his shares in the platform may have value that his judgment creditors can go after, but the shares may have a time-limited value; “All flesh is as grass”, etc.
Just read an annoying column by Bret Stephens and Gail Collins in the NYT where he opines the verdict was “dumb” and victimless and “going to be overturned on appeal.” I’m no lawyer, but I did read the opinion, and it seems pretty firmly based on differences in interest rates that Trump would have paid if the financial statements had been accurate. I guess we’ll see.
Yeah, this is a common theme on the right, along with “So if I think my house is worth more than someone else thinks it is, I’ve committed fraud?”.
To which I can only say: if you deliberately misrepresented your assets (like, say, claiming a property is three times its actual size) or deliberately concealed other existing liens on those assets or claimed ownership of assets used as collateral that you didn’t actually own, then yes, you’ve committed fraud like Trump did.
I can’t help but notice that neither Mr. Stephens nor Ms. Collins are appellate lawyers, or even any kind of lawyer. Is there any reason to take their opinion of what will happen on appeal seriously?
Any creditor with the brains of turtle would avoid such speculative “value” and go after the real estate. While that’s probably heavily encumbered with debt, still it’s a concrete asset with measurable resale value, not the vaporware of Truth Social’s platform.
I have never heard of anyone but Trump using Truth Social. That could be because of my bubble, but I really thought it was just a series of rantings from Trump.