I think the market is mainly banking on Robotaxi being nationwide in 5 years, and Optimus being ready in 10.

For robotaxi, the last 2 years has shown us that FSD 14 has solved the really hard parts of autonomy, so the next logical step is some percentage of people deciding not to own their next car and instead only getting around by Robotaxi.

This is not a bad play by the market. They're poised to redirect a large amount of the existing cash that people are currently paying to (A) own a car, (B) pay interest on the loan, and (C) pay for car insurance. And C does not carry meaningful risk as autonomous vehicles are de-facto safer drivers.

Then the market is kind of putting their faith in giving Tesla 10 years to apply the same playbook to humanoid robots and all of the jobs that that _could_ replace (remains to be seen how capable they can actually make it and what the economics will look like).

Waymo is far ahead of them in execution and actually getting people around in major cities. Tesla Robotaxi is still just a concept.

> Then the market is kind of putting their faith in giving Tesla 10 years to apply the same playbook to humanoid robots and all of the jobs that that _could_ replace

So when I go for a coffee, I don't go to the place where it's a dollar less expensive because it has a robot...

I'm not convinced we wanted to be helped by a robot, even if it does the same thing.

So the economics might be there.... But that's not the whole story, this isn't automating a production line...

The valuation would be realistic only if they were the only ones with a real shot at autonomy or at least a considerable head start, like they did in the EV market. But they don’t.

The real incentive is that Musk won’t let one of his companies “fail”. It will be absorbed into a larger more successful one and keep delivering “investor value”.

Safer drivers I believe, but how do you get around the uncapped liability the service provider carries if someone gets hurt?