Gizmodo57%

SpaceX Has Lost $1 Trillion in Value Since Its Post-IPO Peak 88%

By Matt Novak66%

7/17/2026, 10:50:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 59.5% saturation with 340 hits. Analysis detected 2,106 faulty-reasoning hits from 571 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.4% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,735 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.

Elon Musk was riding high after the SpaceX IPO catapulted him to trillionaire status. 
But his net worth has dipped considerably in recent weeks, even if he won’t be resorting to digging through the couch cushions for rent money. 
Musk’s net worth is now sitting at $797 billion on Friday afternoon, according to Forbes. 
Musk became a trillionaire after the SpaceX IPO on June 12, with his net worth soaring to $1.4 trillion a few days later on June 16. 
But the stock’s price has declined over the past month from an intraday high of $225.64 on June 16 down to $124 at the time of this writing. 
That’s below the $135 offering price as SpaceX has lost about $1 trillion in value in about a month. 
Retail investors are frustrated with the sliding stock price, as Futurism pointed out this week. 
And that’ll happen anytime a stock drops over 40% in a relatively short period of time. 
SpaceX’s scrubbed launch of Starship V3 on Thursday, the first since the company went public, certainly isn’t helping the stock today. 
And the price might not be done sliding just yet. 
Employees and early investors have been restricted from selling, known as a lockup period, but that will change after SpaceX reports second-quarter results on August 6. 
Axios notes that about 1.37 billion shares could hit the market next month, and the end of the first lockup could roughly quadruple the supply of tradable shares. 
Where’s Elon Musk in all of this? 
He’s still tweeting away, as ever. 
The former trillionaire will frequently tweet about SpaceX or Grok but he also seems distracted by culture war issues like the release of Christopher Nolan’s new movie The Odyssey. 
Right-wing influencers have tried to insist the movie is bad because of perceived “wokeness” though anyone who’s actually seen the film would find that laughable. 
The movie has a 96% rating with critics on Rotten Tomatoes and a 97% rating with audiences. 
Musk also recently shared a racist AI video depicting a brown-skinned man as a sexual predator and is clearly trying to stoke racist sentiment against anyone who’s not white, something he’s been doing for years now. 
He also shares incredibly tacky AI videos to promote his AI chatbot Grok, like this one. 
The 55-year-old manchild also seems to be hiding from any real interviews. 
CNBC heavily promoted an upcoming interview with the SpaceX CEO on July 10, but he backed out at the last minute. 
The interview was never rescheduled, though it’s not clear why. 
One imagines it has something to do with the fact that he’s built a little safe space on X where he only hears from his most adoring far-right fans. 
If someone asks him a hard question, he really doesn’t know what to do with himself. 
And as long as he never appears on real news programs, he doesn’t have to worry about tough questions. 
Like how SpaceX plans to make money on anything but Starlink, the only truly profitable part of the SpaceX business. 
Musk seems to prefer the comforts of X, which has been bleeding regular users since he bought it in late 2022. 
It’s an environment where the best movies of the year are seen as unwatchable because a trans person appears for a few minutes. 
And as best we can tell, it’s frying Musk’s brain. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 12.8%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias12.8%This article: 13.1%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 2.8%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Matt Novak: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 3.3%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion9.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.5%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Matt Novak: 2.0%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias13.1%This article: 34.0%Matt Novak: 14.2%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias34.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Matt Novak: 5.8%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error19.3%This article: 5.8%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias5.8%This article: 8.4%Matt Novak: 1.5%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Matt Novak: 1.4%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.3%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias19.3%This article: 4.6%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Matt Novak: 5.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem14.5%This article: 4.4%Matt Novak: 1.1%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man4.4%This article: 10.5%Matt Novak: 3.8%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority10.5%This article: 3.5%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.8%Matt Novak: 5.5%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 1.2%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring1.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%Matt Novak: 3.1%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.4%Matt Novak: 4.0%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.7%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof11.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 3.3%Matt Novak: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.3%This article: 27.1%Matt Novak: 3.3%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 11.4%Matt Novak: 1.5%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity11.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 59.5%Matt Novak: 25.0%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice59.5%This article: 4.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 19.8%Matt Novak: 7.7%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias19.8%This article: 5.1%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.1%This article: 2.6%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

571 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.9%attributed speech543writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAxios • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Axios

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-62.6 ptsWriter: 62.6%Axios: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-20.8 ptsWriter: 20.8%Axios: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Axios: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Axios: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Axios: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Axios: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.