> because only Nasdaq has the incentive to do it

I'm not going to say Nasdaq didn't do this corruptly. But there are plenty of good reasons for the NASDAQ 100, an index marketed as being tech focussed, bending over to include AI issues that don't require nefarious explanations.

▲

petesergeant 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do you think they originally had inclusion criteria, and have the reasons for having those criteria changed? Why do you think Musk has made it so clear that he’s strongly weighting that inclusion in his choices?

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> have the reasons for having those criteria changed? I think it was reasonable to ask if they had. If SpaceX were a one off, it would be one thing. It's not. We have a line of potentially trillion-dollar IPOs raising about as much money as the most valuable tech companies in the world, Alphabet and Meta. It's reasonable to ask if the definition of a large cap has changed. It's also reasonable to conclude that it hasn't, at least not in respect to minimum-float and profitability requirements. > Why do you think Musk has made it so clear that he’s strongly weighting that inclusion in his choices? Musk obviously cares, and almost certainly didn't restrain himself in pushing that care. That doesn't change that these questions and processes predate his engagement with them.
	▲	matwood 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]