> Wasn't there a shareholder suite that alleged the directors aren't independent because of the above-standard Tesla options they receive?

Has a court accepted that argument? I mean, you can come up with all sorts of grounds to claim an independent director isn’t really independent, but unless a court with jurisdiction accepts the argument, it doesn’t really count for anything.

> Has a court accepted that argument

Yes, a Delaware court. It’s why Musk’s pay package is contested and why Tesla redomiciled.

HN is a court of law: some things may fail to meet some legal test, but not that in no way means it automatically becomes subjectively "right". I am adding a datapoint on what's arguable and leaving the judgement of cogency to the reader.

My previously-unstated opinion is: remunerating directors like executives blurs the distinction between those 2 roles in ways that are likely detrimental to long-term shareholders.