You cite several bullet points that are directly contradicted by Wikipedia itself, when saying Wikipedia is your source:

- Ownership of the Tesla brand

vs Wikipedia[1]:

Tesla was founded (as Tesla Motors) on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California.

Where's your source that they didn't own the brand?

- Employees, beyond Eberhard and Tarpenning.

vs Wikipedia[1]:

Ian Wright was the third employee, joining a few months later.[2] The three went looking for venture capital (VC) funding in January 2004[2] and connected with Elon Musk, who contributed US$6.5 million of the initial (Series A) US$7.5 million[10] round of investment in February 2004 and became chairman of the board of directors.[2] Musk then appointed Eberhard as the CEO.

I'd like to say, this is just a strange thing to suggest is negative in the tech space; there's loads of companies that start off as a small group of people (or even solo) and grow once they have investment

- Any real funding. During the Series A founding in 2004, Elon contributed $6.5M / $7.5 total.

- An actual car. During the development of the Roadster, Elon was both Chairman and Architect/CTO.

I don't understand this argument. It basically says "before they sought funding they didn't have any funding", which is incredibly obvious and not a point? Was there something more you wanted to say here? Yeah, he was the money guy who invested in an existing company, which kind of reinforces the point that it was an existing company with something worth investing in *because he did and then he took the reins on direction*.

Similarly, "before they had funding, they didn't have any vehicles to show for it." A car is not software, to actually build a functioning vehicle takes quite a bit of time. It took Tesla two full years after his investment to demonstrate a prototype Roadster. Musk had left the CEO position when the first Roadsters started shipping.

From reading the original founders' thoughts about where they initially wanted to go, it seems that the company was going to be focused on automotive technology, with their cars being largely showcases for their technology, essentially the way Unreal engine used to be sold and the way the Doom games have been showcases for id's engines. They were not really setting out to be a mass-market automaker, is the gist I get from their various interviews. It's very possible that this was because they believed they couldn't disrupt the automotive market, feeling it was too entrenched, and Musk had the money to put that goal within reach.

He definitely reset Tesla's aim and the company demonstrated there was money to be made making EVs. He had a big part in it but a lot of the engineering work was courtesy of Lotus' engineering teams[2]. His main contribution appears to have been forcing the team to pursue carbon fiber and pushing them to make custom headlamps that met DOT standards, in spite of costs associated with both. Despite how Wikipedia words it, if you look at the source - [2] below - it makes the following mention about the headlights, for example:

Again, Elon pushed us to spend the considerable money necessary to develop custom (and DOT-compliant) headlights to make the front look great.

I think when people read in the Wikipedia article:

Eberhard acknowledged that Musk was the person who insisted from the beginning on a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer body and that Musk led design of components ranging from the power electronics module to the headlamps and other styling

The takeaway is that Elon actually designed the components himself. The wording is vague enough to obscure the types of design involved and to play into the "genius" narrative. From all the sources, it appears that he was a guiding influence on style and basic statements about features and materials, rather than actually sitting down and designing individual components.

As to this point:

As for the developments around 2008, it becomes speculation who is telling the more true story between Musk and Eberhard. But as for what both have achieved elsewhere, it seems to me that Musk is also more effective as CEO.

Billionaires make effective CEOs is the argument here? I mean, probably, yes, unless they inherited their billions. I think before Twitter he had proven himself capable, he did great work with SpaceX and Tesla in his role as CEO. It's important to keep in mind the context here: This is a thread in which FormerBandmate wrote "He is a genius at hardware".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc.#The_beg...

[2]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position