Tesla investors push back on any SpaceX merger angle, arguing the real upside lies in robotaxi and Optimus

Tesla shareholders are again debating the company’s strategic priorities, according to a market-focused post on Yahoo Finance. The discussion centers on whether Tesla should pursue, or move forward with, a structural move involving SpaceX, and how that would affect the pace and financing of Tesla’s core technology bets.

The post highlights that some investors do not welcome what it describes as “table scraps,” a phrase used to characterize indirect or incremental value compared with what bulls expect from Tesla’s own platforms. While the language is opinionated, the underlying issue is practical: investors want clarity on what actions will most directly increase the value of Tesla’s autonomous driving and robotics ambitions.

At the center of the bull case cited in the post is Brad Ferguson, whose valuation approach assigns specific dollar figures to two long-promised product areas: Robotaxi and Optimus. In that framework, Ferguson argues Robotaxi could contribute $957, while Optimus could contribute $2,647 to a total valuation, implying a much larger path to upside than strategies that rely on partnerships or structural outcomes with other companies.

The post also references a broader claim by bulls that Tesla could see as much as 800% upside tied to those same areas. The exact assumptions behind the figure are not provided in the material referenced here, and there is no accompanying detail in the post about timelines, regulatory milestones, unit economics, or production scale needed for either Robotaxi services or Optimus deployment.

For context, Robotaxi generally refers to a Tesla-led plan to operate fully autonomous or largely autonomous vehicles as ride-hailing services, with the economic thesis built on reducing the human labor cost per trip and monetizing autonomous driving technology at scale. Optimus refers to Tesla’s humanoid robot program, which the company has pitched as a platform for automating repetitive or hazardous labor across industries, potentially creating a new product line rather than a software-only extension.

The debate also reflects how investors treat cross-company moves in the autos and aerospace ecosystem. SpaceX and Tesla share key leadership and technical DNA through Elon Musk, but financial markets have historically weighed separately the operating economics, capital needs, and execution risk of each enterprise. When investors suspect that Tesla resources could be diverted toward a merger or deal structure, they often reassess whether the expected cash flows from Tesla’s own products remain intact.

What is not clear from the cited post is the concrete form of the “SpaceX merger” being discussed, including whether it is an actual proposal, a hypothetical scenario, or a negotiating concept raised by market participants. The post does not provide company filings, board actions, or detailed transaction terms, nor does it explain what specific governance or cash-flow changes would be involved.

Going forward, investors will likely look for announcement in the places that can confirm or rule out strategic moves: Tesla communications, investor presentations, and any regulatory or legal disclosures that spell out ownership, structure, and funding. In parallel, they will also watch for updates tied to Robotaxi progress and Optimus prototypes, because that is where the valuation framework cited in the post concentrates most of its expected upside.