>> from the heart of where innovation, money, and power collide. in silicon valley and beyond. this is "bloomberg technology" with emily chang. emily: i'm emily in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, it's official. elon musk has agreed to buy twitter for $44 billion. the world's richest man will soon be in charge of one of the

most influential social networks in the world. we have got this developing story covered from all angles over the course of the hour. a new chapter in tech history. but at a same time that the musk deal is going through he tweets another insult at the sec, cong those who run its shameless puppets over his ongoing feud -- ongoing tesla feud. and aside from all the money being spent on twitter, the other big question is what happens to everyone who has been banned from it, including former president trump? how exactly does elon musk defined for repea -- define free speech? we're going to get to all of that in a moment but first, elon musk gets his way, agreeing to a deal to take twitter private for $44 billion. each investor will receive $54 and $.20 for every twitter share they own. ed ludlow has been breaking down

the numbers. what exactly does this mean? ed: what a day. what a day. the stock up almost 6%, its biggest gain since april 5, the day after the stock surged 27% april 4 when musk first disclosed his stake and it is now trading at its highest level since mid-november. as you said, elon musk will pay each shareholder of note $54.20 per each share they hold, and the aim is to take this transaction private, get it done by the end of the year. they have unanimous board approval. the stock was halted late during the session. look at this chart. people positioning to understand desperate so much reporting came out over the weekend that musk had been negotiating with twitter's board right until the early hours of monday morning. they were close to a deal, that something could come as soon as monday, and that is exactly what happened. many of the facts of the deal on the same as we knew.

$25.5 billion of debt financing, different lines of credit, revolving credit and a margin loan, $12.5 billion. the remaining $21 billion as equity finance coming from musk. according to sources, he is still out vetting and speaking to potential co-investors to get in on that $21 billion equity portion, but we don't have any other details beyond that. there are some questions about the price of $54.20 per share. is tht fair their value -- is that fair value? in the statement issued by twitter and twitter's board, they note that $54.20 per share is a 30% premium over the closing share price on april 1. april 1 was the last trading session before musk disclosed his stake in the company. we just read into that that they see it as fair value. but at this stage, more questions than answers. emily: indeed. ed ludlow, thank you. i want to stick with twitter and

bring in insider intelligence principal analyst jasmine enberg, as well as bloomberg's davis. ed just walked us through the nuts and bolts of the deal. talk to us about the unknowns at this point. we have twitter earnings coming up in a few days. is there a chance elon musk could see the numbers and say, hey, no thanks? >> the unknowns that we have at this point are many. but it is official, there is a deal. what we do not know is the $21 billion equity checked we just talked about, how much of that the end of the day will be officially from musk and how much of that will take the form of other equity partners coming in. it is our understanding that musk is speaking with other potential equity partners and that it was not necessary for them to have that lined up before they made this deal public. and that things obviously materialized so quickly over the weekend. that could be part of why we don't see that yet. another question we have is what happens from a regulatory perspective? we have a lot of cushions about does the industry become more

regulated? if one of the partners is from outside the u.s., does this openness up to regulatory scrutiny from regulators not based in the u.s.? then there is also the question of, do twitter shareholders approve this deal? at this point we saw from the press release that twitter's entire board unanimously approved the deal, but it is a subject to a shareholder vote. we are going to be hearing from shareholders in the coming days to see what their views are. emily: twitter has said it will not have an earnings call this week but will report its latest numbers. as planned. jasmine, one of the many open questions here is what kind of business model does elon musk think twitter should have? he has sort of hinted he wants to move away from the ad revenue business model. if so, what does that mean? does that mean subscription, and will that really be a profitable engine? jasmine: yeah, absolutely. speaking of unknowns, one really

big unknown is what happens to twitter's ad business as a result of this deal. as you said, musk is a proponent of making twitter a subscription-based service rather than an ad supported one. the problem here is there is plenty of research that shows consumers still prefer free content in exchange for ads than subscribing, and making twitter a subscription service radically change its business model. it is worth noting this is not something that would happen overnight. there is some talk that musk would need ad revenues to keep twitter afloat as the transition continues. it is also worth noting that this is happening at a time that twitter has really seen a rebound in ad growth. we will have to wait until thursday to see if that continued in q1, but at least for 2021 it reported 41% growth in its ad revenues. and in our latest forecast, we works but in twitter's ad revenues to grow by another 25% this year. emily: how do you expect this

deal to impact the user growth? jasmine: twitter has already been struggling in bringing in new users. i think one part of this whole musk saga that has been so interesting is twitter is a platform that really thrives on news and uncertain the and even controversy. so there is a chance that all of this playing out really could have helped twitter's engagement. of course that is not something we will see in the earnings call on thursday, as that happened after q1. but it is possible that twitter is still struggling. it is actually likely twitter is still struggling. i am not expected to see massive user growth considering the user growth it reported last quarter in monetize about daily active users. emily: michelle, can you walk us through the next steps? this deal is not done. it will happen sometime this year, as far as they have told us. is there anything between now and close that could take this deal off the rails? michelle: so, a bunch of things

could happen between now and the end of the year. next steps for the elon musk twitter deal we have on the table right now is if elon musk wants to, he can take out the equity commitments that he has, $21 billion, and replace it with actual equity from other people. the deal also needs to get regulatory approval, it needs to get approved by shareholders. and then there is always the possibility that another bidder comes in. now, it is our understanding that there is a reverse breakup in this deal which means basically elon musk has to pay a certain amount of money if he decides to walk away from the deal come or if it falls apart for certain reasons. claim so if an over -- if another bidder were to come in -- so yeah, we will be watching that. emily: interesting. now, jasmine, i'm curious what you make of elon musk's stance on free speech, and how you expect that to impact users and

ad revenue. if he evolves the service to be more liberal when it comes to moderation, not in a political sense, but you know what i mean -- what does that mean for advertisers specifically? jasmine: yeah, absolutely. musk has said that he wants to make twitter into a free-speech haven, which would likely reverse a lot of the guardrails that twitter has instituted in order to protect the health of its platform, its users, and the brands that advertise there. you know, doing so might make a lot of risk adverse advertisers really wary about advertising on twitter. there is always the chance of misinformation and disinformation spreading when content is less moderated. so, if they are to keep this ad business, it is something that musk will have to do to figure out how to balance this idea of less content moderation with creating a brand safe environment for advertisers. emily: so many questions that need answers, which will only

come over time. jasmine enberg, michelle davis, covering the deal, all angles of it for us. thank you both. coming up, musk taking twitter private almost a decade to the day after twitter became a public company. does this raise any regulatory concerns, given musk's run-ins with the sec? are policymakers in the u.s. and beyond paying attention? we will have that discussion, next. this is bloomberg. ♪ is bloomberg. ♪

>> here we are, the offer is accepted. >> ultimately no one thought they would settle on that price. >> the biggest criticism of

twitter over the balance of the last decade or so the company has had as a public company, has been that, frankly, they have not innovated very much, and the platform is essentially the same as it was. >> i think the biggest question is, is how did he twitter board buy into this? ultimately they had no backup. this tells you how weak the company was. >> i am more interested in knowing who is going to run the company. what are the priorities going to be? where are they going to be investing? and how is deplatform going to change? >> i am excited to see what he will do the company when he is private. he is a visionary and i'm excited to see how it plays out. emily: back to the story of the day, shares of twitter up almost 6%. what does it really mean for shareholders, and will this raise the eyebrows of lawmakers and policymakers? i want to bring a natasha lamp to discuss. if you are a shareholder today, what does this mean for you? what is going through your head? natasha: well, one question is whether twitter's board is

leaving money on the table. the stock was at over $70 last july, $66 in october. so that is a big question. but, you know, i think the bigger concern for us, our main concern is the consolidation of musk's power. that's not to say anything about who he is as a person. but the simple fact that you have the world's richest man in charge of the world's biggest megaphone, we do not know what his intentions are other than a blankets statement -- blanket statement about upholding free-speech. we have been critical of companies that have the same person as ceo and chairman, because it creates an echo chamber effect where divergent perspectives are not considered. but this is even worse. it is akin to a kid packing up his toys, going home to play by himself, and unfortunately consequences of this game are

much greater than elon musk. emily: so, what are the potential consequences here? do you think this will raise the attention of regulators? specifically the sec, potentially other regulatory bodies here in the u.s., and what about regulators around the world? natasha: i think that it will. i mean, in some ways, with the company going private, and a big concern for us is that it will be shielded from regulatory scrutiny. it will be shielded from the impact of investors like arjuna capital. that the company may ignore. the problem is the impact of twitter, it is not limited to musk's whims. it can have severe consequences on our society and on our democracy. the insurrection on the capital is just one example.

and so i think that there will be regulatory consequences, but they are not going to play out the same way that they have. rolling out the carpet, bringing twitter's ceo in front of congress. not that kind of regulation. the space probably needs some regulation, but the complexity of these issues is so profound. and we have really been pushing for human and civil rights expertise to be built into the board, to be built into business strategy so that the company itself is taking on these issues, not waiting for regulators to do it. and we had that proposed that the company's annual meeting for this spring, although that conversation now appears moot. emily: and now elon musk will be taking on the complexity of those issues, with no shareholders to answer to. to as a private company making these very complex, consequential decisions that impact public discourse.

what is your sense of how he will take on that challenge? natasha: i mean, i think it is a big question mark. but if you go back to when jack dorsey was running the company, a big criticism is he was distracted, he was distracted as being ceo. musk is running multiple companies. he has tesla, spacex, the boring company which is drilling holes under l.a., he has newer link. honestly, how many hours does musk have to spend on this? in my opinion, twitter is too important to be a hobby, and really requires the full-time attention of whomever is leading it. emily: right. jack dorsey just left the company, potentially in part because he had two really big jobs. i want to go back to this question for shareholders. do you really think they are getting potentially a bad deal

here and leaving money on the table? we are shares have not been at $70 for some time, and longtime investors have been waiting a while for any kind of momentum to pick up in the price. natasha: i mean, i hear you there. but the company was -- the stock was at $66 in october. and as you heard from a previous analyst, twitter has been growing ad revenue. the name of the game for twitter was to grow subscribers. i'm very interested to see what musk does with this. if he does indeed bring it to us of option model, that is obvious league going to limit consumer growth. and, you know, in some ways from a social perspective, if we are thinking about twitter as the de facto town square, it could further isolate users, because who wants to pay for an increasingly toxic platform? emily: what do you think this -- i know you are longtime activist

investor, including in facebook. what do you think elon musk buying twitter means for facebook? natasha: i think that it is -- i think it's sad to see, sort of, the emperors of social media, if you will, for a long time have been critical of mark zuckerberg's position in power, given his 14% ownership in facebook, but also his role as ceo and chairman. and here you have elon musk potentially owning the entire company, and being able to do whatever he wants with it. i mean, there is a history of billionaires buying media companies. and you have to ask why. going back to hearse, look at bezos buying the washington post. this is not something new.

but it really brings up those concerns of the consolidation of power, especially when there is such a huge impact on our public discourse, our democracy, human and civil rights, and free-speech. emily: right. bezos famously said he would be hands off at the washington post. here, elon musk is buying this huge media opposite -- media outlet saying basically the opposite. the tosha lamp, thank you as always for joining us. coming up, we debate the topic of free-speech now that the musk twitter deal is officially done. but first, what role might the sec play here? that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪ is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in the process of stealing a deal to buy twitter, elon musk also chose to use the platform to once again complain about the sec. specifically, the san francisco office, overtaking tesla private, cong them quote, shameless puppets of wall street short seller sharks. and adding, once again, that is why he lost all respect for them. let's talk about the sec with lydia who joins us from washington. so curious what folks inside the sec are thinking right now. does the sec actually have jurisdiction over this deal? lydia: to a degree. the sec's role is really one of disclosures. when the transaction proxy is filed they'll get a chance to really push twitter for clarifying a lot of the terms of this transaction. emily: so, what exactly -- what kind of information could the sec request here, and how could

it influence the deal? lydia: they will be really scrutinizing the terms of the transaction. that can be everything from the financing to how the deal came together. but also any unusual provisions such as the reverse termination fee. whatever the sec feels like needs more disclosure, more transparency for twitter shareholders to be fully informed ahead of their vote later this year. emily: so, let's talk about potentially broader questions here. potentially the sec has some sway. you also have elon musk, a single person, being in charge of influencing so many different now critical parts of u.s. infrastructure. whether it is electric cars, or space, or now potentially social media. even though these are not necessarily overlapping areas, could the power he has over so many different important parts of business and the world economy make a difference? lydia: you know, emily, i think

you are right, and everyone else is to focus on the power this acquisition could bring to the world's richest man to have control over this very powerful communications platform. in d.c. i think that will translate into a renewed debate on social media's role as this public forum that musk is talking about, and whether or not there is need for more liability and what role content moderation plays in the free-speech ecosystem. emily: you have been covering the sec for a long time. how do you think the history between musk and the sec is going to play out here? tweets like the one we saw today, which is not unusual. lydia: it will be interesting to see how musk comments or does not as this deal makes its way through the regulatory process. but beyond that i don't want to speculate too much. emily: and can you remind us where the sec is right now on the tesla going private dispute?

there is, you know, another lawsuit ongoing, dragging up this tweet from 2018. still lives on. lydia: that's right. i have read the same news that some of my colleagues have reported here about whether the sec kind of cracked that wide open again, or maybe looks to bring some new cases there. so we will see what the future holds for that. emily: all right. lydia beyoud, thank you. coming up, musk says he hopes even his worst critics remain on twitter, because that is what free-speech means. we will explore what elon musk's version of moderation might actually mean for the service, and public discourse. this is bloomberg. ♪ this is bloomberg. ♪

this is xfinity rewards. our way of saying thanks, with rewards for the whole family! from epic trips... to the original jurassic park... on us. join over 3 million members and start enjoying rewards like these, and so much more in the xfinity app! and check out jurassic world: dominion, in theaters june 10th.

emily: welcome back to "bloomberg technology." i am emily chang in san francisco. on april 14, elon musk offered to purchase twitter for $43 billion. 11 days later he has made that deal a reality. here is what he had to say the day he made that original offer about how he views the platform. >> i think it is very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech, where --

[audience whoos] >> yeah. twitter has become a de facto town square. it is just really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law. emily: so, what exactly is free speech the elon musk way? brad stone with me now. this is the biggest open question. what exactly does he mean by free speech, and how exactly does he plan to allow that to flourish? brad: right. emily: on a private service. brad: that is the question, and it has to be viewed amid a context of a larger debate on social media it has been happening for years. conservatives tend to think that the big social media platforms, twitter, facebook, etc., have to many rules, the algorithms are too opaque, bans of users are

to draconian. while liberals, those on the left, tend to think the social platforms are not doing enough to fight hate speech and disinformation, etc.. we just heard from elon. it sounds very positive, very straightforward, but i think part of the reason why this acquisition is so polarizing is because it does seem like he is siding with the conservatives and saying he wants to be more permissive of speech, and perhaps even the kinds of misinformation that have made twitter such a difficult for them to use. emily: but even in a town square there are consequences. there are laws, there are enforcement of those laws. what are the rules elon musk's way? brad: that is exactly the question. he has not provided any specificity to the otherwise laudable statements. what i wrote about this morning was the status of @donaldtrump, with almost 90 million twitter followers. what is he going to do?

he has expressed some skepticism of a permanent ban. so i think we are likely to see donald trump -- if he wants to, he told fox news he doesn't want to go back to twitter. if he comes back to the service, what kind of reaction will that get? what are the limits, even for a public figure that has trodden over them in the past? emily: you pointed out that jeff when he bought the washington post famously said he has hands off, he will not have any editorial decision. elon musk is basically saying the opposite here. he is going to be very involved. especially if you look at how involved he is at tesla and at spacex. what does it mean for a single person to have such sway over a platform that is so influential over public discourse? brad: the comparison with the comparison with the washington post is interesting. that was a $250 million deal, pennies in comparison, back in 2013. bezos said he would not get involved. he largely has not from an

editorial direction. i like this, not just -- i liken this to a political take over. he is coming in with a very specific ideology and saying he is going to operate a different way. emily: is it more like a murdoch moment? brad: yeah, i compared it to murdoch's takeover of the post and the wall street journal. he is taking politics in and promising it up archer from the current platform as administered. emily: brad stone, thank you as always. i want to consider -- continue this conversation with adam kobach of it. david, i want to start with you. it feels like we have been talking about this every day since april 14. now it is official. what about twitter is going to change under elon musk? david: actually i thought what brad just said was very interesting. if you really ask yourself, is this a financial takeover or a political take over or both. if it is both, i am not as

worried about the free-speech issues. because obviously the business will require significant moderation. it is not just a matter of obeying the law. users expect a more or less safe environment in which to function. but you know, in my macro response to the whole deal, it is probably a good thing. cautious optimism. because interestingly, regarding facebook, which as you know i think about a lot, i have said for a long time that the best thing for facebook would be of zuckerberg found a way to take it private, so he could make the difficult changes, which he doesn't even seem to want to make, sadly. but taking twitter private, taking any company private, is a way to do difficult things that the market might not let you do. and i think some of the suggestions he has, and most notably authenticating all humans, which we can talk about in a minute in more detail if you want, could be very positive

changes. emily: adam, i want to know how you would answer that question. do you believe elon musk has the public's best interest at heart, twitter users' interests at heart, or elon musk's interests at heart? adam: i think we will see. it is an open question. every platform, twitter included , starts off with a bent towards free expression. the problem is that 1% of users who make a mess of the place. with spam, harassment, hate speech. what some people call lawful but awful speech. the problem is if you do not do anything about that kind of speech you drive away your happy, productive 99% of responsible users. can you turn off your advertisers who really don't want their ads next to hateful or harassing content. every community wants a generally free environment, but also a police force to enforce the rules put that is what most people want on social media. that comes through on pulling.

people want more transparency for expression but they also want clear content moderation and a do not want to see junk. i think he will see that. emily: well, renee duresta pu this -- put this very eloquently wishes that elon musk is equal parts innovator, equal parts troll. even though we can all agree, elon musk is incredibly innovative. is he innovative enough to figure out free-speech in a way that works for everyone, when so many people, so many massive companies that have come before have not been able to? adam? adam: you are absolutely right. frankly one of the challenges about this is that twitter is such an important service for policymakers, for newsmakers, that whoever runs the company, whether it is musk, or whether it is jack dorsey, have found that politicians working to wrap

around content policy is a headache. i think once the initial susie as a passes, he may find -- initial enthusiasm passes, he may find that too. what happens next time there is a january 6 type of event? what happens when nancy pelosi calls? these are no calls a ceo fancies making but unfortunately it is part of the job. emily: elon musk -- if only he could do a poll saying do you want me to own twitter, we would know how many users are in favor of this. there is a huge amount of people who think, including the twitter board, that this is the right thing to do. david, you mentioned the idea of authenticating users. what exactly would that accomplish? david: let's remember, twitter has never required users to really be anything. you could call yourself anything, you could be anyone, and it was really a lot of capacity in terms of who was actually speaking.

of course some people identified themselves clearly on their twitter profile, etc., but that was not a requirement of the service. facebook on the other hand has always had that. and even though it has been the verge from to some degree, it did to some extent maintain civility in the service, relatively. and i think this could be a more civil conversation just by making that change on twitter in itself, where you always knew who was speaking. because anonymity is one of the real scourges of disinformation, and causes successful disinformation. you don't know who is speaking, people can mask themselves, etc. so i think that is a very positive thing. what i want to keep going back to this question, does musk really want to make money from this deal, or is he considering this a plaything? you would think with this kind of expenditure, he has got to make a good business. if he really has to make a good business, i think these agonizing questions anybody is

asking about moderation will be settled by the marketplace, and they will be settled in the way that we are just hearing. he will have to moderate, just like every other social media does, because that is what users and the community wants. emily: can maybe spacex is an interesting comparison, because he has kept that is a private company. but we do not know what the financials look like. adam, i am curious to hear from you, given you running in these washington policy circles. is this going to raise the eyebrows of policymakers? do you foresee any potential regulatory issues down the line? adam: i don't foresee any issues particularly with the sale in terms of a review or anything like that. i think we have already seen that republicans and democrats are viewing this a little bit differently. i think in the last couple of weeks you have seen congressional republicans cheering for musk's takeover of the company, perhaps they think he is going to allow trump back on. i think if you gave most

republicans in congress truth serum they would say trump being on twitter was better for democrats than for republicans. so i do think you will see the continued working of the reps. that has always been true of social media. but i don't see significant regulatory issues. i do for see that musk will continue to poke at regulators like the sec. that has been part of his history. emily: and the ceo of twitter is an emitter of an all hands meeting with employees right now. he has just said the company will continue to operate as usual until the deal closes. we are getting headlines from the meeting now, that now layoffs are currently planned, that stock grants are continue to vest, but there will be a hiring freeze for now. david, really curious how employees are taking this. as i understand it there has been a huge contingent of people not happy about this, and another contingent of people strongly in favor of elon musk.

also curious about jack dorsey on the role he has played in this equation. we saw some attention -- some tension going forth between jack and elon musk. jack changing his twitter handle to blockhead, musk complement and him. jack saying that elon musk is the techno-king. what has been the influence the you think of jack dorsey on this deal, having left of the company? david: it is a good thing to speculate about. my guess is that jack, like me, is cautiously optimistic about what this could mean. but no one can look at elon musk and not worry that something could spin out of control in an unpredictable direction, and i'm sure jack, who feels very deeply attached to and proprietary towards twitter, wants to see his they be kept healthy. -- see his baby kept healthy.

but i want to see if there were important changes they had been prevented from making, because it would prevent -- and that is all going to go away once the company is private. can i just ask adam a question, though? because i wonder about the sec. they still have to approve this transaction. here's a guy who was accused and settled with them for securities fraud regarding tesla. and didn't necessarily abide by the terms of the settlement. what is the possibility, as a washington guru, adam, that maybe the sec will think of him as unsuitable unless certain conditions are put on this transaction? it's not an antitrust issue but they have the right to do whatever they want. adam: it is not out of the clare. and certainly the sec chair has not been shy about using his authority to, for example, the whole crypto industry. they have not yet done anything

but it is possible. you could say this is my moment of extract some kind of conditions or concessions. i think that is very possible. and of course that is not the end of it, because even in musk 's role as head of tesla, he's counseling tangling with regulators around safety and all these questions, and there are important questions. so i don't think the acquisition is even the end of musk's interaction with regulators around twitter. emily: this is not the end of anything. we are going to have to leave it there, david. this is the beginning of something, if it is anything. adam kovacevich as well as david kirkpatrick. we could debate this for hours. coming up, twitter's crypto future. after elon musk's acquisition, could the platform have an open-source future, and what would that mean? that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: time for the crypto report. i want to get back to elon musk buying twitter. he said he wants to open the algorithm. could twitter's future be decentralized, and what does that mean? jack mallers and sonali basak with us now to to discuss. jack, i am sure you have opinions about this as a twitter user but also business twitter i know is one of your customers. what has been your reaction to elon musk sealing the deal and making it officials? jack: ladies, hello, happy monday. thanks for having me. i am very excited. i look up to elon as an entrepreneur, as someone who makes the world a better place

in my opinion. his existence has been net positive in my opinion. i always thought that an open payment standard that allows for natively digital physical settlement, that sounds crazy but is it is cheaper, better, faster, more inherently innovative platform. it allows natively digital companies to enable natively digital payments. and i don't think we have ever seen a social network really exercise muscle and it seems like elon has been hinting at it and i am very excited to see it come to reality, hopefully. fingers crossed. emily: so many people do not realize that there is already a relationship between strike and twitter. twitter said last year that tipping with bitcoin would be made available over the lightning network, with you guys. how far has not gone so far and where else could ago now? jack: i think over the last 12 months there has been a lot of belief and interest in this

concept of creator economy as more and more of the creator world lives the web. i kinda want to take a step back for a moment and revisit payments as a whole. payments as we know them today, how do you digitally move a piece of paper? how do you digitally move a rock? how do you digitally move a bar of gold? trick question, you can't. so all payments predicated on older assets are promises of future settlement and that is where you get intermediaries like banks and card networks that facilitate these payments. they make them really expensive and really slow. they inhibit other people in the world that they don't serve from participating. for the first time ever guys, we have an asset, a physical bear instrument that is digital. it is a mind blowing concept. how do you move a physical bitcoin digitally? what do you mean? that is part of how it works pretty not only can we do creator payments, twitter can do micro payments, it can enable a creator economy, twitter can check out on a starbucks if they are both on the bitcoin lightning network.

so when you lower the barrier of entry, you don't need to be issuing credit, you don't need to be promising debt, you don't need to be regulated to make payments and facilitate payments. so i think twitter can do anything. sonali: you work with the lightning network. that is very bitcoin-oriented. but we are seeing bitcoin and dogecoin rise on the back of these announcements. so what do you think about the potential for bitcoin, other currencies, dogecoin, we're seeing them drop a bit now. but we have seen them rise on the excitement of elon musk and twitter. jack: yeah, you are seeing everything in the world rise on excitement because the federal reserve and other central banks is scaring the deer life out of everybody. everything is more appealing than holding dollars or something that will bleed to death. so i would not take a lot of net worthiness that dogecoin is up. so is the couch in my living room over there. who cares? bitcoin is a known monetary policy, the best asset ever. it is better at being a central

bank than central banks. it is better at being visa than visa. why do i need to focus my time on anything else? we have a lot of work to do with empowering the world with the greatest tool that will ever be invented in my lifetime. so i don't really get distracted by the noise. don't really matter to me. i don't know, the dollar is down, that's what that is means. sonali: -- emily: that must be some couch. thank you both. much more ahead. stay with us. this is bloomberg. ♪ s bloomberg. ♪

emily: elon musk sealing the deal to buy twitter. twitter ceo pragmatic or wall has been talking to employees at a twitter all hands meeting over the last hour. a lot of questions there.

our ed ludlow has been getting details on what parag agrawal has been saying. a lot of questions. ed: no layoffs currently planned. there will be a freeze on hiring. there has been a lot of questions over the last 10 days from insiders i spoke to. what happens to rsu's? a lot of twitter workers want to know how does a private company actually work? the management team have said what you expect them to say in this set of circumstances. emily: he says twitter is going to continue to operate as normal until a deal is done. whatever normal is in this context. they have said they want this deal to happen before the end of the year expected to happen before the end of the year. how soon could happen? how fast could this deal actually get done? ed: it would take time to take a company private. there is not a lot of past precedent for a company at this 10 -- this scale. when does elon musk get to implement the changes he has proposed, or how does that work?

is he literally walking into the offices and saying, i am here, i have some ideas, let's talk about it? insiders i have spoken to, a lot of them are positive about it. they welcome his ideas. they just don't get the hierarchy. how does this company now work? does caracara ball stay scl? -- does parag agrawal stay as ceo? emily: what does it mean for current exec it is up twitter? ed: and there are questions -- and who are those people? are like-minded activist investors that want to see the same changes? because that could change the dynamic of the deal. emily: what are the chances this deal falls through? ed: i will not put a number on it. there are a lot of people confident they will not be regulatory problems going forward, based on the notes we have seen in the last hour. emily: all right. so many unanswered questions, but thank you for answering what you do know. ed ludlow, thank you. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology."

we will be back here tomorrow, follow even more details, more angles on this deal, as well as tech earnings from the biggest giants, alphabet and microsoft reporting. we will be across all of it tomorrow. i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪ this is bloomberg. ♪

this is xfinity rewards. our way of saying thanks, with rewards for the whole family! from epic trips... to the original jurassic park... on us. join over 3 million members and start enjoying rewards like these, and so much more in the xfinity app! and check out jurassic world: dominion, in theaters june 10th.

>> good morning. we are counting down to asia's major market open. shery: the top stories this hour, elon musk seals the deal to take twitter private, one of the biggest buyout agreement in history. paul: a turnaround, a busy week for big technology earnings.