• Elon Musk said he's going to give every child in the US a share of his space company, SpaceX.
• That would amount to $10.7 billion, based on SpaceX's stock price and the 72 million US children.
• Governments and billionaires have previously explored ways to spread corporate ownership.

Christmas came early: Elon Musk wants American children to own stock in his space company, SpaceX, next year.

Musk wrote on X around 1 a.m. Monday that he planned to make the donation next year — "the first of many," he said. SpaceX went public this summer.

Giving one share to each of the estimated 72 million US children would cost roughly $10.7 billion at SpaceX's closing price of $147.92 on Friday. Musk's 4.77 billion SpaceX shares were worth about $706 billion at that price, so the gift would reduce his holdings by about 1.5%.

President Donald Trump said on Truth Social on Monday that the shares would be transferred through Trump Accounts, tax-advantaged investment accounts for eligible American kids launched this summer. Under temporary Treasury rules, donated shares generally cannot be sold for five years.

"This is exactly what was envisioned when we created TRUMP ACCOUNTS," Trump said. "Bringing together the GREAT PRIVATE SECTOR, Elon and so many more, to invest in our children."

The White House said nearly 70 million Trump Accounts have been created. Numerous entities have agreed to contribute, including a $6.25 billion donation from billionaire couple Michael and Susan Dell for children in lower-income zip codes. In July, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband pledged personal SpaceX shares worth at least $321 million, prioritizing lower-income communities.

The White House, Elon Musk, and SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Musk's plan to give away SpaceX stock raises questions about a new kind of billionaire philanthropy: Gifting people shares in a company instead of cash.

Giving millions of children a stake in SpaceX could give them money to use later in life — but the value is tied to a single company's stock. And history shows that efforts to spread corporate ownership can yield uneven results, from big investment returns to stakes being sold for quick cash.

Here are other historical efforts to share wealth or spread corporate ownership among everyday people.

US Sen. Mike Gravel's 1978 share proposal to Alaskans

In 1978, US Sen. Mike Gravel proposed a statewide ownership corporation that would have given Alaskans, including children, stakes in major energy and other business projects. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was one potential investment.

The idea was that Alaskans would benefit from an economic boom and any rising asset values. However, the plan never materialized.

Alaska instead developed a dividend system that draws on its preexisting Permanent Fund, a state fund established in 1976 with oil royalties that invests in stocks, bonds, and other assets. It began paying annual cash dividends to eligible Alaskans in 1982.

The Permanent Fund still continues today, with a $1,200 dividend distributed to every eligible Alaskan adult and child who applied in 2026. The initial dividend this year was set at $1,000, but recipients also got an extra $200 energy-relief payment.

Eastern Europe's 1990s mass privatization experiment

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, several countries in Central and Eastern Europe used voucher programs to transfer former state-owned companies into the hands of everyday people.

Russia began distributing privatization vouchers to roughly 144 million people in 1992. Russians could use them to buy shares in former state companies, exchange them for shares in investment funds, or sell them for cash.

Czechoslovakia used a similar system, allowing adults to buy low-cost voucher books and use the points to bid on company shares or invest through funds. After Czechoslovakia split in early 1993, the Czech Republic continued its voucher program, while Slovakia canceled its planned second wave of voucher privatization.

Other countries, including Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states, adopted their own versions of mass privatization.

The programs were designed to rapidly create broad public ownership. But many recipients sold their vouchers for cash amid economic uncertainty, rather than retaining shares.

Evžen Kočenda, a professor at Charles University's Institute of Economic Studies, said that the program was a good idea at the time, given the region's poor economy, but that ultimately, the vouchers were not 'real money,' but rather a financial asset.

Kuwait's 2019 national stock exchange privatization

Kuwait privatized Boursa Kuwait, the operator of its national stock exchange, in 2019, and gave Kuwaitis the opportunity to purchase a stake in the company. The only requirement for registration was that the individual was a Kuwaiti citizen.

Those who participated — about 83,000 of the country's 4.4 million — were initially allocated up to 70 shares each. The initial public offering share price was set at 100 Kuwait fils, roughly $0.33 per share.

Following the privatization, Kuwaiti citizens and private-sector investors together owned roughly 94% of Boursa Kuwait. The Public Institution for Social Security held the remaining 6%.

The Kuwaitis who participated saw a huge return on investment: When Boursa Kuwait debuted on the public market in September 2020, its shares rose more than 10-fold from their 100-fils IPO price, closing at 1,055 fils, or about $3.41.

Today, the privatization is widely regarded as a major success in the investment world, and Boursa Kuwait has described it as the Middle East's only privately owned stock exchange.

Elon Musk’s public endorsement this week of a potential $3.5 trillion merger between SpaceX SPCX.O and Tesla TSLA.O has rattled some insiders involved in the discussions, who worry his comments could invite shareholder scrutiny and delay the process by several weeks, according to a person with direct knowledge of the talks.

The disclosure created a “mess” for the process, as it could lead to questions about how well Tesla shareholders’ interests would be represented, the person said. The concerns reflect similarities some participants see with Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, which sparked years of litigation over Musk’s role in the deal.

Musk, who serves as CEO of both SpaceX and Tesla and owns significant stakes in each company, this week told investors that the two companies were examining what would be the largest corporate transaction in history and revealed that both had formed special committees to evaluate it. The backlash to those remarks is reported here for the first time.

The parties have hired advisers, but discussions are at an early stage, three sources familiar with the matter said. SpaceX approached Tesla in recent weeks, and the companies have been discussing a range of transaction structures, including a SpaceX acquisition of Tesla or a merger under a newly formed holding company, the person familiar with the matter said. They are weighing different forms of merger consideration, including an all-stock deal, the person said. These details of the talks have not been previously reported.

Tesla, SpaceX and Musk did not respond to requests for comment.

SolarCity deal raises legal concerns

In related-party transactions such as a SpaceX-Tesla merger, independent board members typically oversee the process to safeguard public shareholders’ interests.

That issue loomed large in Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity, which triggered years of litigation after shareholders alleged the world’s richest man had influenced the process to bail out his investment in the struggling rooftop solar company. At the time, Musk owned roughly 22% of both Tesla and SolarCity, which was founded by his cousins.

Shareholders argued that Musk’s involvement and public support undermined the deal’s fairness. Central to the case were claims that despite his minority stake, Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla due to his ties to board members and domineering style.

The Delaware Supreme Court later noted that plaintiffs’ contention of the absence of an independent committee, together with “certain other facts concerning Musk’s involvement in and public support for the transaction,” warranted the finding of unfair dealing.

The courts ultimately upheld the acquisition as fair, though it took several years for the case to be resolved and Tesla directors settled allegations for $60 million.

Musk excluded from merger negotiations

Musk owns nearly a fifth of Tesla and just under half of SpaceX, and analysts have said a merger would give him control of the combined entity. On Tuesday’s call with investors, Musk acknowledged that as a conflicted party he cannot be part of the discussions of the special committees. Advisers are also in contact with his lawyers to ensure Musk is recused from the merger discussions, the source familiar with the talks said.

Eric Talley, a law professor at Columbia University, said a merger could benefit shareholders by eliminating the need for Musk to divide his time between the two companies. He added that any legal challenge may be harder to predict than the SolarCity case because Tesla is now incorporated in Texas rather than Delaware.

“The Texas thing is a wild card. No one knows how Texas deals with cases like this because Texas never dealt with cases like this,” Talley said, noting that Texas has sought to establish itself as a business-friendly alternative to Delaware, and Musk’s comments so far were not necessarily problematic.

Ultimately, he said, litigation risk would hinge on the terms of any transaction.

“Who’s going to get the better side of this deal? And that’s usually what gives rise to litigation,” Talley said.

Public comments could delay historic deal

People involved in the process worry Musk’s public endorsement of the merger and disclosure of talks could intensify investor scrutiny, as interested parties typically avoid expressing views publicly while independent directors evaluate a deal, the source said.

The SolarCity case could become a reference point for investors and courts assessing any future SpaceX-Tesla transaction if advisers fail to fully insulate the special committees from Musk’s influence, the source added.

A tie-up between Tesla and SpaceX would be the biggest deal in history, creating one of the world’s largest industrial and technology groups. It would surpass Musk’s acquisition earlier this year of his artificial intelligence company xAI by SpaceX, which ranks among the largest corporate transactions ever announced.

A deal of this size would also face scrutiny from global regulators, especially due to Tesla’s business in China and SpaceX’s work in US defense and AI.

Musk says ‘there’s a lot of merit’ to potential merger that would require approval of 50% of all Tesla shareholders, but he declined to elaborate

Investors were paying close attention to Tesla’s third-quarter earnings call on Wednesday afternoon, after chief executive Elon Musk floated the idea of merging the car company with his rocket and AI company, SpaceX. But they didn’t glean further information after the company announced there would be no questions on the matter.

“With regard to a potential merger with SpaceX, I think I said everything that should be said yesterday,” Musk, the CEO of both companies, said on Tesla’s earnings call. He repeated a phrase he said on Tuesday: “I feel like I’m tap dancing through a minefield.”