One of our hallmarks at the Solari Report is the care we take to identify guests, experts, and allies of high integrity. Out of the relatively large pool of potential contributors, one of our principal filters is to try to ascertain whether someone is aligned with what I call, as a shorthand, the “Decentralizing Universe” (DU) versus the “Centralizing Universe” (CU).

People in the DU are loyal to an independent vision that typically is decentralizing—embracing individual freedom and economic activities that are fundamentally productive. Ideally, they have found a way to support themselves independent of large corporations, governments, and foundations. People in the CU, in contrast, are loyal to a leadership that is centralizing power and money at the expense of individual, local, and national sovereignty, and which perpetuates a negative-return-on-investment (“tapeworm”) economy. Typically, their financial incentives create conflicts of interest.

At the root, this is about the divine versus the demonic.

People in the Centralizing UniverseThe CU represents a complex ecosystem. Grossly simplified, it comprises three categories of people:

People who lack empathy: This group fully embraces the opportunities to centralize and plunder.

People who are simply willing to be well paid for their work: This group does not look at or embrace the full centralizing vision—by and large, they prefer not to know—but when put to the test, they almost always “go along.”

People who hunger for titles, financial benefits, and social prestige: This third group, often very talented, may talk a good game—they may even say they want to be in the DU—but the financial rewards and social prestige they crave function as powerful incentives to remain in the CU system. These people may work for a prestigious foundation, university, or company, or be bought into the CU by government grants. The people in this group will likely never ever touch the “third rail” or integrate the hidden parts of the economy into their personal understanding of finance and politics.

As the descriptions of the second and third groups indicate, there are plenty of good people in the CU. Some just do not see the power lines clearly—in fact, one of CU leadership’s goals is to attract help from people who do not see or embrace the core centralizing vision. This results in countless instances of “multiple personality disorder” in behavior and allocation of time and resources. If people do not understand the ultimate goals of their funders, investors, and employers, they can easily end up being “not agreement-capable” when you make a deal with them, or they may unexpectedly promote ideas that baffle those who know them.

There are numerous cross-cutting issues that influence the behavior of people in the CU. For example:

Some people do what they do because they are captive to a control file (a private record containing secret information or pictures that form the basis for potential threats or blackmail). The higher on the CU ladder a person climbs, the more likely they are to be governed by a control file. For many positions, in fact, a control file is required.

There are people who need the money—perhaps they have expensive child care needs, student loans, or disabled family members. The Great Poisoning, including autism and vaccine injury, ends up herding many people back into the CU.

Another cross-cutting factor that can influence some people’s behavior is mind control and neurowarfare. This group includes children indoctrinated early in life, including by secret societies or the intelligence agencies. Increasingly, TV and online activities such as video games and porn drive the indoctrination. It appears that electromagnetic targeting may be able to accomplish this as well.

Finally, covert operations are a reality. They include legal and financial assassinations and physical assassinations of a person or a member of the person’s family. Many people are simply and understandably afraid.

Whether members of the CU cannot imagine another way, or cannot afford to pick a fight with “city hall,” or are in legal or financial straits (including personal debt traps), almost all will continue to align with the CU professionally, no matter what their personal values are.

This is one reason why it is important to map out a person’s financial incentives—doing so will help you understand where, when, and whether you can align with them. If a person is on the payroll of Harvard (one of the most important private investment syndicates in the world), there are numerous areas they are likely to consider “off-limits.” If you choose to be in partnership with them, an invisible “leash” may rein them back in at the worst possible moment for you. They may not even realize that the leash is there—only learning about it themselves when it gets pulled. I have witnessed this situation scores of times.

Within the CU, there are certain professions where the insistence on loyalty to the CU is particularly strong. Medicine and health care, for example, are significant vectors for implementing two top CU goals: control and depopulation. One rationale for the creation and growth of the psychiatry profession was to shift people’s dissatisfaction with the governance system and its management of society to a narrow focus on individual problems. This is one of many ways that people have been encouraged to become more narcissistic and self-absorbed—narcissists are often easier to manage and control. This also explains the CU’s promotion of an infinite variety of addictions. Whether the addiction is to legal or illegal drugs, alcohol, gambling, video games, sex, porn, or sugar, it typically leads to more self-absorption and an inability to organize effective community-level or political action or to productively engage in independent wealth-building enterprise.

A defining characteristic of many people in the CU is that they are happy to invest their financial resources and make money by following the CU leadership. They do not want to be centrally controlled, but they generally do not connect the dots between where their time and money are going and what is happening in the world. Their attitude is that they are not responsible for the whole if they are only doing their little piece. Most practice profound disassociation.

Ironically, having emotional resistance to centralization can even result in people working harder to please the centralizers, guided by the belief that if they make enough money, they will be able to survive whatever the leadership does in the future—or that if they earn enough “points,” they will have the protection of insiders for themselves and their family. In this negative cycle, the greater the fear, the greater the loyalty to the insiders.

It is worth mentioning that there are some exceptions to the rule. For example, some CU authors, writing on topics that are useful and not controversial, deservedly earn an independent retail audience—and their lack of understanding of the hidden side of the world does not distract from the quality of their offering. Examples might include writers like James Clear (author of Atomic Habits), Edward Tufte (author of Envisioning Information), and Gary Keller (author of The ONE Thing). (If M. Scott Peck were still alive, he would be another good example.) We are also beginning to see successful CU business people, such as Jeffrey Gundlach, who have started to open up and be more honest about what is wrong.

People in the Decentralizing UniverseThe people who make up the DU also constitute a complex ecosystem. Often, they are people who were in the CU for some period of time and leave after acquiring skills and personal resources, bringing those resources with them. They include:

People who have always been in the DU: This group chose the DU path early on, whether because of their background or training or because they had a particular inclination toward independence and figured out how to create a source of income and way of life that supports their independence. This describes Solari Future Science Series host Ulrike Granögger’s career path with the Academy For Future Science.

People who leave the CU early on: Some people start out trying to climb the ladder in the CU and quickly discover they are not willing to go along with some of its requirements. This describes author and scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell, who now joins me each quarter for News Trends & Stories at Solari and writes at his fascinating Giza Death Star website.

People who leave well-established careers in the CU: Still another group leaves the CU because they come to realize what is going on and willingly choose to strike out “into the wilderness” on their own. This fact pattern fits many of Solari’s hosts, guests, and allies. Notable examples include John Titus (my Money & Markets co-host), Dutch researcher and investigative journalist Elze van Hamelen, USA Watchdog’s Greg Hunter, Dr. Pierre Kory, and cash warrior Susan Luschas. Another example is Solari ally Dr. Mark Skidmore, who has managed to stay in a tenured position but whose integrity has likely flatlined his trajectory up the academic ladder (while surely saving many lives).

People rejected by or ejected from the CU because of their ethics: Another group gets rejected by the CU or prevented from climbing the ladder because the CU’s human resources arm realizes that these individuals are exceptionally smart, will quickly figure out the real agenda, and will never go along. (The CU knows how to screen out potential whistleblowers early!)

People rejected by or ejected from the CU because of their skill profile: Finally, the CU rejects (or keeps from climbing the ladder) people who do not fit the profile of what the CU presently needs—in other words, they do not fill a slot. As you can imagine, this group is growing in size.

One of the most important groups in the DU are people whose economic independence is supported by a wide base of people who derive value from their work. These people have found a way to be economically successful with a small business, farm, practice, product, or other enterprise that is supported by customers, members, or a wide base of retail supporters, donors, or investors. They maintain a virtuous value circle between themselves and the people who fund them. Small farmer Joel Salatin is a remarkable example of one such entrepreneur.

People who are firmly in the DU share some recognizable qualities:

They have the light of the divine in their hearts.

They have built a financially independent or successful pathway to live and work in the DU, or have brought from the CU or their family the financial resources they need to be independent in the DU—and they use those resources accordingly.

They have a good map of both official reality and reality.

They have a personal commitment to being productive and consistently adding value to others.

They are fearless, but governed by wisdom and discernment.

They are marked by ongoing acts of integrity and generosity.

They love to learn and teach; they generate a high learning metabolism.

In short, successful members of the DU don’t talk a good game—if you study how their money and time work, they live a good game.

Forms of DU Sabotage

Sometimes, there are people in the DU who, because they are fearful of people in the CU, are willing to serve the CU on a project basis—often in exchange for immediate financial rewards. These are not always low-integrity people; they can be someone in local government who has generally high integrity but understands the limits of their power and authority and is not willing to take risks for what they perceive as a likely Pyrrhic victory.

On the low-integrity side, this category could include:

The small business owner willing to provide air cover for local drug dealers

The local resident willing to put arsenic down a neighbor’s well at the behest of an intermediary working for an intelligence or private security firm

People who snitch to law enforcement or tax agencies in exchange for financial rewards

The people who arrive at high view counts on YouTube or get the chance to give a TED Talk are often people who have enjoyed years of CU funding and promotion, whereas people in the DU regularly get throttled on these platforms. For example, it is my understanding that when Greg Hunter was thrown off YouTube, it was an interview with me that constituted his last strike. From 2000 to 2020, my own view counts were regularly cut or videos taken down, while my ability to generate income was aggressively sabotaged. Clients’ checks often disappeared in the mail. During that 20-year period, Solari’s strategy became one of helping people—often one person at a time—and building a base of support so wide and grounded that we could survive the periods of targeting and intense sabotage. I often quote this line from the movie Gladiator: “Before they can kill you, they must kill your name.” The CU invests extraordinary amounts to try to destroy the names of truth tellers such as Unlimited Hangout’s Whitney Webb and eat up their time and resources. At Solari, I anticipate that we will pay professional cybersecurity firms a significant amount of money to try to protect our audience from cybercrime and imposters.

Scholar David A. Hughes has described the phenomenon of “sudden darlings”—people who the CU promotes in order to suck oxygen out of a group in the DU that is gathering steam. After current Solari team members Jeroen van Straaten and Robert Dupper built extraordinary momentum some years ago with groundbreaking Breakthrough Energy and Secret Space Program conferences, someone funded and created two “sudden darlings”—David Wilcock and Corey Goode—and concocted what I nicknamed the “Blue Chicken Op” to promote entertaining stories about secret programs regarding space and the black budget. The op worked, halting the progress and momentum of a group of legitimate researchers and journalists. After the op was no longer needed, the “sudden darlings” fell off the radar. Unfortunately, Wilcox was recently reported to have committed suicide.

John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is another example. He was a “sudden darling” brought on the scene to provide a modified hangout after the plunder game started being exposed. I had numerous battles with people who wanted me to promote Perkins on the Solari Report or get paired with him on interviews. And this kind of thing happened on numerous other occasions. For a long time, running quality control at the Solari Report was exceptionally difficult, especially when entrainment technology was likely being used to create great enthusiasm around a given “sudden darling” or intelligence op. Looking back, the Solari team has done a remarkably good job of maintaining strong quality control.

Admittedly, one can find many capable and talented people from the CU on YouTube or TED Talks, addressing a wide range of topics that include those of interest to us at Solari. Some of their content can be quite good. The challenge of bringing people like this into the Solari fold, however, is that our network will then assume that because of their association with Solari they are, by definition, people of integrity; they will accept the person’s opinion—or certainly listen to it—not just in the highlighted area of expertise but for a much wider range of topics. This is where conflicts appear—including serious conflicts that inspire the audience to make grave mistakes that can harm family health or finances.

If I do an interview on an alternative media show that is very strong and capable on a particular topic, but that show promotes gold IRA scams—because it makes them money—some of our subscribers and people in our wider audience will assume that they can trust that IRA provider. This dynamic was a major issue during the p(l)andemic, when people who had been pre-pandemic guests on the Solari Report started promoting the Covid shots and we had to put distance between us.

Distance is invariably required when an ally or guest starts recommending actions or strategies that could harm subscribers’ health or lose them money, often because the ally or guest is operating with a false map of the world, such as where they believe the financial markets are and what they believe will happen next. What are their motivations? Some people promote future scenarios to intentionally fool people. Some do it because the audience hungers for certainty. Some do it because they are misinformed or have poor judgment. And some do it as true believers. There are numerous fact patterns, and it can take time to sort out failures of integrity from failures of competence.

Supporting the DU

Though many in the DU are entirely invisible, some can be well known—but they get far less promotion than people of comparable talent in the CU. On the other hand, Thomas Massie, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are examples of people who, when forced out of the CU, have been able to build an even larger audience in the DU. This is a sign that the models are changing, and it signals an opening that is an opportunity for all of us.

With that said, members of the DU who are fearless, get significant things done, and have found a way to maintain economic independence are not as large a group as we would like. It is this group we are trying to nurture with many of the things we do at Solari. Our actions aimed at supporting and strengthening the DU network include:

Promoting and reposting DU members’ work

Funding projects with them

Hiring them or recommending them or their businesses

Subscribing to their sites

Making them Hero of the Week

Helping out or covering for them in emergencies or times of trouble

Helping them learn to shift their bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and other assets out of financing their enemies in the CU into more productive companies, activities, and assets

In addition, the Solari Builders initiative is a way to grow this group going forward. We want to take what we and our network have learned about how to succeed in the DU ecosystem and teach it to people who are starting to build families, careers, and businesses. We want them to be able to go faster and avoid many of the pitfalls we have experienced—while recognizing that it is those very pitfalls that helped us build a better map of reality and better risk management tools.

The Story of Gideon

In 2019, I published an interview with Thomas Meyer about the Old Testament story of Gideon—my favorite Bible story. The story highlights the importance of people who integrate the qualities of integrity, faith, and competence. There are a wealth of smart and capable people in the CU who look competent, and perhaps even exceptional, on a particular topic, but if you scratch the surface, you find someone who is financially dependent on the plunder and Great Poisoning agendas and will not buck the people who hold their leash.

Some recently recommended a historian to us as a teacher for the Solari Builders curriculum. Though a fascinating historian, the scholar in question aggressively defended the implementation of genocide and plunder in Gaza and heavily promoted the Covid shots, making it clear that he lacks integrity. From reading his statements on these topics, one can only assume that he is full on in support to the CU leadership. How many people died or were disabled or bankrupted because of his promotion of the shots?

It is much easier to find talented people in the CU than the DU. However, there is a potential litmus test that can be used to flush out a potential lack of integrity. If you learn to investigate and recognize the products, cash flows, businesses, assets, and people who come with a CU “leash,” you can take steps to avoid situations where you might get hiccupped, switch-hit, or bankrupted. It has taken me a lifetime to sort this out, and I am still learning, but my hope is that you can benefit from these observations.

 ===========================================================================================

  (Again this is from Brave Browser AI. It says robots are only 10% of the workforce at Tesla's Fremont facility - now. But Teslas will soon produce its first million robots so the humans might not have so many jobs next year!! )

(Please note that humans go home after 8 hours so Tesla does not have to pay time a and a half for overtime so one robot might be doing the job that had been held by 2 or 3 men.)

 ( A million robots could replace 2 to 3 million employees.)

As of early 2026, over 1,000 Optimus humanoid robots are operating on the live production line at Tesla’s Fremont facility, performing tasks like battery assembly, parts handling, and final vehicle assembly. 

. These robots are not in pilot zones but are fully integrated into daily manufacturing operations.

However, Tesla’s Fremont factory still employs thousands of human workers. While Tesla has not released an official breakdown of the human-to-robot ratio, estimates suggest that humans still make up the vast majority (likely 90%+) of the workforce on the line. The 1,000+ robots represent a significant but still small fraction of the total labor force, which historically numbered around 10,000 employees at peak production

Key Points: Robots: 1,000+ Optimus Gen 3 units deployed as of January 2026 

 Humans: Estimated 8,000–9,000+ human workers still active on the line.

Ratio: Roughly 1 robot per 8–10 humans, though this is shifting rapidly as Tesla scales robot production.

Future Outlook: Tesla plans to convert the Model S/X line to produce 1 million Optimus robots per year by late 2026, which could drastically change this ratio in the near term .

The deployment marks the largest volume of humanoid robots in a single manufacturing facility globally, but humans remain essential for complex assembly, oversight, and quality control

 ===================================================================

What JPMorgan Saw Inside Tesla's Fremont Factory As Humanoid Production Nears

  by Tyler Durden

 

Retail flows across Asia remained heavily concentrated in newly listed, high-beta names, most notably Chinese robotics maker Unitree following its blockbuster Shanghai debut. The retail craze surrounding physical AI merely shows Beijing's accelerating push to dominate the humanoid market.

To close out the week, we pivot across the Pacific for a peek inside the US humanoid-robotics supply chain, where Tesla's Fremont buildout provides a timely indicator of how quickly physical AI is advancing.

Rajat Gupta, a JPMorgan analyst who covers Tesla, recently toured Tesla's Fremont factory and reported to clients this week that the facility, once the birthplace of the company's electric vehicles, is now pivoting toward producing robotaxis and humanoid robots.

Gupta and his colleagues toured the roughly 5-million-square-foot facility and found that the discontinued Model S and Model X production lines are being replaced by manufacturing equipment for Tesla's Optimus humanoid.

"On Optimus, production lines are being installed at Fremont (the area was tarped off at the time of our visit), and TSLA remains largely on schedule for the targeted four-month transition following the end of S/X production in May, with initial humanoid deployments in 2H26 expected to focus on Optimus Academy for training and data collection, followed by internal factory use and external sales as early as 2H27," the analyst said.

He said that Optimus robots are not currently working inside the Fremont plant. Initial deployments in the second half of 2026 will instead take place at the "Optimus Academy," where the robots will collect real-world training data before being deployed in factories.

 

"Overall, we came away from the factory tour with greater conviction in the robotaxi fleet ramp through late 2026 and early 2027, as well as an Optimus SoP that remains largely aligned with previously communicated timelines, both of which are central to the long-term thesis, while near-term commentary on demand drivers and FSD uptake remains constructive," the analyst said.

Here are Gupta's top takeaways from walking the Fremont factory floor:

Facility details. TSLA's Fremont facility serves as the company's primary test bed for innovation, supporting the launch of both new vehicles and humanoids across its expansive roughly 5-million-square-foot footprint. The plant manufactures premium Model Y variants and performance and premium Model 3 variants, while the recently decommissioned S/X lines, retired in early May, are being replaced by Optimus production lines. The factory showcases the breadth of TSLA's automation capabilities, featuring numerous custom-built robots and proprietary software designed to enhance manufacturing speed and precision. Production continues under several modernized tents, originally erected during the Model 3 "production hell" days, which remain integral to the facility's operations. During our visit, we observed gigapress machines, stamping operations and general assembly lines and participated in FSD demonstrations involving the Model Y L variant and the Cybertruck.

Giga casting and stamping. TSLA's innovative giga-casting process, first introduced with the Model Y, consolidates 70 underbody components that would otherwise require welding, significantly streamlining production. This approach reduces the number of robots needed on the welding line. The Model Y utilizes roughly 300 robots, compared with approximately 1,000 for the Model 3. TSLA also attributes this advancement to its materials-science expertise, including the development of a custom aluminum alloy, a capability enhanced through its collaboration with SpaceX. For stamping, TSLA employs Schuler presses with six progressive, interchangeable dies. TSLA stamps roughly 10 visible vehicle components in-house, while hundreds of remaining stamped parts are sourced from suppliers.

Unboxed manufacturing. TSLA emphasized that Cybercab production leverages an unboxed manufacturing process in which large subassemblies are built independently and in parallel, then joined together during the final stage. This approach allows open access from all angles, enabling simultaneous installation and streamlining the overall assembly process.

FSD demos. We participated in FSD demonstrations involving the Model Y L and Cybertruck, with the team walking us through the various modes, ranging from Sloth to Mad Max. The vehicles demonstrated notable driving accuracy, including navigating through a construction zone without manual intervention. The Autopark function worked seamlessly as well.

The Cybercab ramp-up is closely tied to the FSD v15 rollout. Management expressed optimism about the trajectory and pace of the Cybercab production ramp, highlighting that technology validation and production through unboxed manufacturing are advancing in parallel. The fleet deployment timeline will be largely dictated by the upcoming FSD v15 launch later this year. TSLA indicated that it is intentionally holding back on adding Model Y units to the robotaxi fleet, reflecting confidence in its ability to scale the Cybercab fleet in the near term. TSLA views FSD v15 as a step change in performance, comparable to the leap from v13 to v14, which produced a significant increase in parameter count, a larger context window and a roughly 20% reduction in latency. The v15 upgrade encompasses seven core technologies, approximately 40% of which are currently being tested in the robotaxi fleet, where initial feedback has been encouraging. TSLA continues to focus on minimizing regression in core driving functions as it introduces new capabilities, and FSD v15 is viewed as the primary gateway to scaling unsupervised FSD. While the current AI/HW4 stack can run v15 and support unsupervised FSD, TSLA's AI4.5 compute system is designed to accommodate rising compute and memory demands as robotaxi models scale and context windows expand. The system offers roughly 10% more FLOPS and twice the memory.

Robotaxi unit economics remain compelling with the Model 3 and Model Y, although Cybercab is designed to broaden the TAM beyond traditional ridesharing. TSLA highlighted that current robotaxi economics are attractive, with the Model Y and Model 3 carrying total ownership costs of roughly $0.60 to $0.70 per mile at average personal-vehicle utilization rates. Those costs fall to approximately $0.50 to $0.60 per mile at utilization rates four to five times higher, as is typical for robotaxis. That remains well below the roughly $2.50 to $3 per mile charged by incumbent rideshare operators. However, TSLA's vision for robotaxis extends beyond the traditional rideshare segment, which represents only a low-single-digit percentage of the overall mobility market, and calls for a purpose-built robotaxi platform capable of driving total ownership costs down to approximately $0.30 per mile. Management also reiterated that Cybercab is only the initial form factor, with additional vehicle types expected to follow as the platform evolves, citing the Robovan demonstration from the October 10 event as an example.

Optimus is on track for SoP in the coming months, with commercial sales expected as early as 2H27. While we did not have the opportunity to view the Optimus production lines currently being installed following the S/X decommissioning, TSLA indicated that it remains largely on schedule with its roughly four-month transition target after S/X production ended in May 2026. No Optimus robots have been deployed at the Fremont factory yet, although management highlighted that stamping and body-in-white operations are likely to benefit most in the near term, given the repetitive and hazardous nature of those tasks. In contrast, the general assembly line still requires human dexterity and is expected to be a longer-dated application for humanoids. The initial rollout plan calls for Optimus robots to be deployed at the Optimus Academy in 2H26, where the humanoids will learn by interacting with real-world environments, accelerating TSLA's data-collection flywheel. Following this phase, humanoids will be deployed internally at TSLA factories for further data collection and to minimize third-party data complexities, with commercial sales to external customers anticipated as early as 2H27. TSLA is aligning humanoid data collection with its FSD methodology and is committed to retaining data ownership internally, rather than relying on third-party datasets, to preserve its long-term differentiation. Separately, TSLA noted that compute capacity increased roughly twofold year over year in 1H26. The finalization of the design, although aesthetics remain a work in progress, represents a key milestone for Optimus and signals the company's commitment to scaling volumes over the longer term. TSLA is targeting roughly 1 million units at Fremont, with a longer-term goal of approximately 10 million units at Giga Texas. The Gen 3 unveiling will be timed closer to SoP to protect the company's competitive advantage, while the scope of Gen 4, including its capabilities, cost and scalability, will be informed by Gen 3's field experience.

The demand rebound is attributed to FSD and model-lineup refreshes. Excluding any potential uplift in EV demand from higher gasoline prices tied to the Middle East conflict, which management teams at publicly traded franchised dealers indicated has not materially affected BEV demand, TSLA attributes the recent acceleration in unit volumes to progress on FSD and a refreshed model lineup. Second-quarter 2026 unit sales increased 25% year over year and 34% sequentially, marking the largest quarter-over-quarter increase since 2019. The introduction of new base variants, alongside the Model Y L and updated performance models, has broadened TSLA's offering, enabling the company to address a wider range of use cases and price points. TSLA has made FSD the centerpiece of its product portfolio, leveraging improved functionality to generate additional customer interest. Management noted a growing trend of customers visiting showrooms specifically to learn about FSD. This sales momentum is also evident internationally, with markets such as Australia and South Korea, as well as early results from Europe, showing a step change in demand following the FSD rollout.

Europe FSD approval update. TSLA is pursuing a dual-track strategy for FSD approval in Europe, engaging directly with the EU, where the approval timeline has been repeatedly delayed and is now expected in October, while simultaneously working with individual countries such as the Netherlands, whose regulatory frameworks can be adopted by other EU member states. Early driving data from Europe show promising safety metrics, including roughly five times fewer collisions across approximately 65 million kilometers of FSD driving, which management believes is gradually increasing regulatory momentum. Once approved, activation in European markets is expected to occur relatively quickly, measured in weeks rather than months or quarters.

FSD pricing remains iterative over the near to medium term, although it represents a significant long-term opportunity. TSLA explained that the transition from upfront FSD purchases to a subscription-only model is designed to maintain flexibility and capture the increasing value of continued improvements in functionality. In the near term, management is prioritizing vehicle activations and FSD usage, especially because roughly 50% of TSLA owners historically have not tried FSD and a substantial cohort of customers who previously accessed older versions have not activated new subscriptions. TSLA continues to see strong customer retention once drivers experience the technology, supporting its one-month free trial for all new customers and the decision to maintain pricing at approximately $99 per month.

Automotive gross margins. TSLA noted that it has made targeted pricing adjustments to certain Model Y variants and a broader group of Model 3 variants globally to offset commodity-cost headwinds. Changes to interest-rate subsidies should also alleviate some pressure on gross margins. Management noted that first- and second-quarter 2026 gross margins were modestly affected by the shift toward subscription-based FSD monetization, as upfront FSD purchases ended in the US and Canada in February 2026 and will be phased out elsewhere by August 2026. The ramp-up of cathode and anode production, which began in January 2026, is expected to contribute gradually to cost-of-goods-sold efficiencies. It typically takes 18 months for a plant to reach an appropriate level of scale and utilization, although the magnitude of the savings may be difficult to isolate given several other moving parts. More broadly, TSLA emphasized that its operating philosophy remains focused on expanding the top line and leveraging significant production capacity, with a target of up to 3 million units compared with JPMorgan's estimate of approximately 1.8 million deliveries in 2026.

Tesla's humanoid pivot is not an immediate commercial story, but it could become one in the second half of 2027 as series production scales and external sales begin. The emerging robotics race between the West and China is increasingly centered on Tesla and Unitree, with both companies preparing to ramp factory output and commercial deliveries over the next year.

Tesla shares still locked in a bear market.

 

The West does, however, have a supply-chain problem. China controls significant portions of the supply chains for components required to manufacture humanoids, including rare-earth materials, permanent magnets, actuators, electric motors and optics. Tesla may lead the Western commercialization effort, but without secure domestic or allied sources for these critical components, the US risks building its humanoid-robotics industry on a supply chain that Beijing can restrict, as currently seen across critical materials ranging from tungsten to germanium (read the report here).

 https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/inside-teslas-fremont-factory-model-sx-lines-make-way-huamonid-production