The Evolution of Elon Musk, Part 1.

Identity, Reputation, and the Digital Transformation of Influence

TL;DR: Musk converted $39B in Tesla stock to control Twitter/X and then leveraged this platform to gain unprecedented government authority through DOGE. The data suggests this calculated trade of transparent wealth for opaque power threatens other stakeholders in his businesses and democratic accountability.

When studying patterns of wealth and power, financial transactions often tell a deeper story than public statements. In recent months, I've been tracking an extraordinary case study in capital transformation: Elon Musk’s systematic conversion of transparent, regulated wealth into opaque, unaccountable influence. The quantitative evidence is striking—a multibillion-dollar sale of Tesla stock, a subsequent loss of $800 billion in market value, and the parallel acquisition of unprecedented governmental authority. This isn’t just another billionaire’s financial whimsy; it's a fundamental shift in how power operates in our information economy. The data reveals something more calculated than most observers recognize: a strategic trade that sacrifices public market visibility for something potentially more valuable—control over both the means of information distribution and the levers of government policy. The implications of this evolution extend far beyond Musk himself, revealing vulnerabilities in our verification systems that affect every citizen in an increasingly digital society.

The $39 Billion Bet That’s Paying Off (For Him)

Musk’s transformation from innovator to information controller follows a narrative arc we’ve seen before—though usually in fiction rather than financial disclosures. Like Dr. Evil evolving from straightforward villainy to legitimate business interests (while never abandoning his quest for control), Musk has undergone a metamorphosis from product-focused engineer to something far more complex: a private citizen wielding unprecedented government authority with unusual secrecy.

Saturday Night Live / Broadway Video. Yes, Mike Meyers (pictured above) played Musk in another Saturday Night Live skit.

As regular readers will appreciate, I’ve long been interested in Elon Musk. I got a front-row preview of Musk’s strategy in 2013 at the ARPA-E Summit in Washington, DC, where he publicly announced the “repayment” of Tesla’s DOE loan. The timing revealed his financial acumen—Tesla’s stock surged after this announcement, creating favorable conditions for a secondary offering that raised $1 billion. This wasn’t actual debt elimination but clever refinancing: Tesla essentially used private capital (made accessible by the stock price surge) to replace government-backed debt. By removing the DOE loan, Musk freed Tesla from government oversight while maintaining the same leverage. It was a masterclass in capital structure narrative management that foreshadowed his later activities.

It disclosed Musk’s core playbook: leverage government resources for growth, then shed government oversight when sufficient private capital is secured to ensure ample cash flow.

SpaceX has followed this pattern with remarkable precision, securing over $19 billion in government contracts while privately held. This dual status—a government contractor with private ownership—creates a regulatory gray zone that Musk exploits masterfully. SpaceX benefits from NASA’s technical expertise and taxpayer funding while avoiding the transparency requirements of public companies.

Starlink (a wholly-owned subsidiary of SpaceX) presents an even more concerning case study. After receiving regulatory approval and spectrum allocation (public resources), it now serves as both a commercial service and a geopolitical tool. Its deployment in Ukraine highlighted the military applications for high-speed data transfer, a capability that Musk threatened to withdraw over funding disputes. The U.S. government eventually paid up, funding Starlink terminals in Ukraine at a substantial markup to maintain this critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, Starlink became the world’s largest satellite constellation while sidestepping traditional regulatory frameworks for orbital deployment.

Now, he’s applying this same strategy on a larger scale through DOGE. We should all be concerned with his actions, but understanding his history is important, too. While some media reporting makes it seem that DOGE is an entirely new invention, it began as the U.S. Digital Service in the Obama administration. Through bipartisan legislative actions—many championed by California Democrats, including then-Senator Kamala Harris—the service gradually accumulated broad authority that Musk now wields with far different priorities.

Musk’s Three-Phase Evolution: Product → Profit → Power

Tracking Musk’s career reveals a clear evolutionary path that has transformed a product-focused entrepreneur into a power-hungry character well-suited to be a James Bond villain. This evolution followed a methodical progression through three distinct phases.

During his initial Product Builder phase (1995-2010), Musk focused on creating tangible products that solved concrete problems. PayPal streamlined online payments, SpaceX reduced launch costs, and Tesla built desirable electric vehicles. His engineering-based innovations could be measured analytically through transaction volumes, launch success rates, and vehicle deliveries.

Following Tesla’s 2010 IPO, Musk entered his Market Value Engineer phase (2010-2020), where he mastered the art of engineering market value through narrative. Tesla’s market capitalization grew nearly 200X during this decade, from about $2 billion to $390 billion, while production rose from roughly 1,500 vehicles to 500,000—over a 300X increase.

This valuation is a paradox: Even though production grew faster than the company’s market cap, Tesla’s valuation has consistently far exceeded traditional metrics. The key insight emerges when you compare Tesla to other automakers: During its rapid growth phase (2010), Tesla’s implied value was $1.33 million per annual vehicle ($2B ÷ 1,500). As it grew, it should have been moved toward a valuation more like a traditional automaker, with a valuation of $10,000-$30,000 per annual vehicle produced (or $5 to $15B, not $390B!). This enormous premium is attributable to Musk’s skill as a promoter. It exemplifies the “narrative value” of the company—the quantifiable premium that traders assign to Tesla’s story rather than its intrinsic financial value.

By 2020, Musk realized that both attention and government policy were upstream resources that could be controlled with extraordinary leverage in a digital economy. This insight led to his current Information & Government Controller phase (2020-present), which began with his widely criticized acquisition of Twitter (now X) in 2022 for $44 billion, funded by selling part of his Tesla holdings. His upward trajectory accelerated when President Trump appointed him to lead DOGE, endowing him with unprecedented authority and minimal oversight.

The Data Speaks: Capital → Influence → Policy

The consequences of Musk’s public-to-private asset conversion strategy are empirically measurable through what’s visible and hidden. Since joining the Trump administration as head of DOGE just eight weeks ago, his public, transparent wealth has collapsed. According to Forbes, Tesla’s market capitalization has plummeted over 50%—vaporizing nearly $800 billion in shareholder value since December. The carnage accelerated this Monday, March 10, when Tesla experienced a 15.4% single-day drop (its second-worst in company history), solidifying its position as the worst-performing stock on the S&P 500 in 2025, down 45% year-to-date.

From a pure capitalist perspective, Musk’s DOGE detour appears self-destructive. However, a closer examination of the data reveals something more calculated. Consider the equation: If Musk willingly sacrifices hundreds of billions in transparent value, what is he gaining that makes this trade worthwhile?

The answer emerged during my research for this installment. While shedding public assets, Musk has quietly accumulated less visible forms of influence that operate beyond balance sheets and SEC filings. For example, during Monday’s Fox Business interview, he casually mentioned that DOGE has already embedded over 100 operatives across nearly every government agency, with plans to expand to 200. These individuals—whose hiring processes, compensation structures, and reporting relationships remain entirely opaque—are now making consequential decisions about government operations with minimal oversight.

To justify this unprecedented access, Musk claimed his shadow workforce generates “$4 billion daily” savings and targets “$1 trillion” in total reductions. A straightforward analysis exposes these figures as mathematically implausible. The federal government spends approximately $17.5 billion daily. Musk claims his team of 100-200 people has instantly reduced federal spending by nearly a quarter—without legislative authorization, program eliminations, or visible service reductions.

What Musk is executing isn’t just a business strategy—it’s an information heist. From a monetary perspective, his losses appear catastrophic, but in today’s information economy, he’s robbing Fort Knox in broad daylight. The real currency being extracted isn’t dollars but unrestricted access to government data systems, regulatory decision-making, and narrative control—assets potentially worth far more than Tesla. While other shareholders watch their portfolio values plummet, Musk is converting transparent equity into opaque influence with minimal accountability.

As a former federal employee, I can attest that while government operations can undoubtedly be streamlined, the infrastructure of checks and balances protects the public’s interest. It exists precisely to prevent the kind of magical efficiency Musk describes. Federal programs have statutory authorization, financial controls, and congressional oversight precisely because they manage public resources, not a private CEO’s discretionary budget.

Most revealing is how Musk leverages his privately owned media platform to control these competing narratives. When X experienced extended downtime on Monday, he deflected responsibility by attributing the outage to a “massive cyberattack” from the “Ukraine area”—without evidence but conveniently reinforcing his anti-Ukraine stance. That same day, he labeled U.S. Senator Mark Kelly—a decorated Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut—a “traitor” for supporting Ukraine after Kelly’s weekend visit there.

When Fox Business host Larry Kudlow directly questioned how he managed his businesses while leading DOGE, Musk responded, “With great difficulty,” followed by a chuckle and sigh. This casual dismissal of his fiduciary responsibilities to Tesla shareholders represents the culmination of his evolution: public accountability has become an inconvenience to be minimized rather than a fundamental obligation to be honored.

The Dangerous Asymmetry Problem

This evolution reveals the privacy and identity asymmetry problem I’ve previously described. I warned that “participating in society feels more dangerous today because low barriers to information have made social relationships increasingly asymmetrical.¹” Musk has not only recognized this asymmetry—he’s weaponized it.

Through DOGE, his team has sought sweeping access to heavily safeguarded databases containing sensitive personal information on millions of Americans. According to NPR reporting this week², DOGE has access to IRS tax records, Social Security Administration data on lifetime wages and disability status, Veterans Affairs health records, including mental health information, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau complaint data and company investigations.

The Security Clearance Paradox

Musk’s crusade against “government waste” becomes even more problematic when considering the security framework he’s circumventing. The United States Government has multiple layers of oversight in hiring precisely because it handles sensitive information and the critical infrastructure necessary for its function. These aren’t bureaucratic nuisances—they’re essential safeguards.

Under normal circumstances, someone with Musk’s profile would likely struggle to obtain even the most basic security clearance. The standard SF-86 form requires disclosing foreign contacts, financial entanglements, illegal drug use, and a history of erratic behavior—all issues for Musk. Yet through DOGE, he’s gained access to systems and information that should require much more rigorous vetting.

Beyond Digital Feudalism: The Identity Verification Paradox

In my post 18 months ago, I advocated for universal identity verification to solve the asymmetry problem in digital discourse. To keep America the free-est nation in the world, we need enforceable, consistent standards that apply universally, regardless of platform or ownership.

Musk has instead created what amounts to digital feudalism, where platform owners exert lord-like control over information domains and government functions. The distinction between my approach and his isn’t “control vs. freedom” but “public vs. private governance of identity”.

Consider the governance gap: As a publicly traded company, Tesla operates under SEC oversight, shareholder votes, and public disclosure requirements. With DOGE, Musk evades scrutiny: In numerous lawsuits, judges have determined that DOGE is duplicitous, claiming to be “not an agency when it is burdensome but an agency when it is convenient.”

It’s worth noting that government verification is already the international norm—driver’s licenses, passports, background checks, and criminal records all represent established verification systems operated by public institutions, and public companies are expected to report audited earnings. The problem isn’t that verification is a new burden but that our existing verification infrastructure was designed for a world of physical presence and occasional verification, not continuous digital interaction, where identity can be algorithmically processed at scale.

Here’s the counterintuitive truth that most privacy advocates miss: In networked systems, selective (even elective) privacy creates asymmetrical power, while universal transparency establishes symmetrical accountability. When only select actors (platforms, governments, billionaires) can see everything while remaining opaque, they gain disproportionate leverage. When everyone operates under the same visibility standards, power equalizes.

This connects directly to the reputation scoring system I described in the three previous installments. Just as SciValidate aims to replace binary “likes” with meaningful indicators of scientific validity, our broader digital ecosystem needs reputation metrics that quantify trustworthiness beyond mere popularity. The current system allows Musk to leverage his follower count and media access while operating with minimal accountability.

The core insight from SciValidate applies even more urgently here: reputation must be earned through demonstrated integrity, not merely accumulated through visibility or credential-claiming. A universal verification system would track reputation based on consistency, factual accuracy, and transparency—metrics that apply equally to billionaires and everyday citizens.

Consider this: In a world where Musk knows your browsing habits, political leanings, financial status, and health records (through platform data and DOGE access), while you know only what he chooses to reveal, the information asymmetry creates a power differential measurable in billions of dollars of market value. What Musk is losing in public valuation, he’s more than making up for in private assets that are easily hidden, making him first among the tech broligarchs.

To put it in simpler terms, “Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and king ain’t satisfied ’til he rules everything” [Springsteen, 1978]

Conclusion

Musk’s evolution from product builder to information controller represents a fundamental shift in how power operates in the digital age. By trading transparent, regulated wealth for opaque, unaccountable influence, he has created an unprecedented concentration of control over information, infrastructure, and policy. The implications extend far beyond a single billionaire’s ambition—they challenge core principles of democratic governance and individual privacy.

In my next installment, I’ll detail a comprehensive framework for addressing these asymmetries through public digital infrastructure, symmetrical transparency requirements, and independent verification utilities. The solution isn’t to restrict innovation but to ensure that our verification systems evolve to match the sophistication of our information ecosystem.

1.

2. Source: NPR, 'DOGE: Elon Musk, Security, Data Information Privacy,' March 11, 2025.