Tesla was worth, at most, a few million dollars when Elon became their largest investor. They had no products. They had no sales. He turned a $2 million company into a $700 billion company, but he's not the founder because he wasn't in the paperwork for the first year of its existence in which very little happened? Ok.

Additionally, a settlement was reached to literally call himself a founder. At this point it's boring semantics of what "founder" means.

But go ahead and keep trying and failing to poke holes to push your unfounded narrative.

"He paid someone to not dispute his lie" is not the defense you seem to think it is.

You are completely incapable of having an honest conversation about this

The same could be said of Ray Kroc and McDonald's, but it typically isn't because the McDonald brothers aren't the ones who made McDonald's ubiquitous on a global scale. Most of the time, Ray Kroc is considered the founder of McDonald's because he was the one to lead its global success.

Except in the case of Ray Kroc, he actually was the founder of the company that became McDonald’s. He didn’t pay the McDonald’s brothers for the rights to pretend he was the founder.

He bought the franchise for $2.7 million and paid the McDonald brothers a percentage of profits. I don't see a difference between Musk and Kroc in this regard. Without Musk, Tesla wouldn't be what it is today just like without Kroc the McDonald brothers' business would have remained regional and small.

I disagree with your criticisms as you’ve stated them.

I’m confused. The parent shows one company was founded by the person. While in the other case, it wasn’t.