Elon Musk wrote on X at 20:51 UTC on Friday: “A petition is underway to reinstate Jensen and I’m signing it too”. The 12-word post was a reply to another user’s post about Nvidia employees who want the former chief executive back; it names no company and links no petition. Relays within 15 minutes, among them The Kobeissi Letter at 21:05 UTC, added the words “as CEO of Nvidia”.
Nvidia’s bylaws leave the choice of chief executive with the board: officers “hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Directors”, shareholders cannot act by written consent, and a special meeting can be requested only by holders of at least 15% of the voting power who have owned it for a year. That is about 3.65 billion shares, more than four times the 3.58% stake Jen-Hsun Huang held in Nvidia’s 2026 proxy, by our arithmetic.
Business Pill · Proxy Measure Explained
An evergreen Business Engineer explainer on proxy measures: why a count can stand in for, but is not, the thing that matters. It teaches the general idea only and does not discuss Nvidia, the petition or Musk.
The key insight: As we read Nvidia’s bylaws next to Musk’s post, the petition and the decision run on different tracks: the post reaches an audience, while the choice of chief executive sits with a board that, on its own account, is still selecting a search firm. A shareholder route exists between annual meetings, but only at 15% of the vote held for a year.
Musk’s post went up at 20:51:25 UTC as a reply to a 14:01 UTC post by another X user, who argued that Nvidia employees wanting the former chief executive back should resign. By 21:26 UTC, api.fxtwitter.com returned 387,278 views for Musk’s reply. The post’s text is the single sentence quoted above, with no link and no image.
The Kobeissi Letter’s relay, posted at 21:05:40 UTC, 14 minutes after the original, said: “Musk says he will be signing the petition and supports Jensen Huang’s return to the company”. Dozens of other relays between 21:04 and 21:17 UTC used the words “as Nvidia $NVDA CEO”. Musk’s own post does not name a role.
Polymarket’s one-minute price history for its three “Will Jensen Huang rejoin NVIDIA by …?” markets, 20:30 to 21:18 UTC on 13 November 2026, fetched at 21:19 UTC. The dashed line marks Musk’s post at 20:51 UTC. The markets are thin ($7,163 to $16,402 of liquidity each). These are prices traders paid, not our forecast.
What Was Posted on X
@yunta_tsai A petition is underway to reinstate Jensen and I’m signing it too
Elon Musk posted this reply at 20:51 UTC on 13 November. It says a petition to reinstate Jensen is underway and that Musk is signing it; it names no company, role or petition and carries no link. The piece quotes it verbatim and sets it against Nvidia’s bylaws and the board’s statement.
The Petition in Circulation
Musk’s post does not say which petition it means. A Change.org petition titled “Bring Jensen Huang back as Nvidia CEO”, created on 12 November by a starter who describes themself on the page as an “Nvidia shareholder”, was linked in replies after the post. When we read it at 21:17 UTC, the page showed 215 verified signatures, 157 of them signed that day. It invites the board “to offer Jensen Huang the opportunity to return as CEO, subject to his agreement and the board’s independent judgment”.
The page calls itself “an independent, voluntary, nonbinding petition” and says “Signing does not constitute an official shareholder vote, proxy solicitation, authorization to vote shares, or investment recommendation”. It adds: “Share ownership is not verified”. Separately, WIRED reported on 13 November that an internal Nvidia suggestion-box post urging the board to weigh employee sentiment had drawn more than 1,600 comments, as our piece on the staff post sets out.
Thresholds from Nvidia’s Amended and Restated Bylaws of 12 March 2024 and its 2026 proxy statement; the 3.58% stake is from the 2026 proxy’s ownership table. “More than four times” is 15 divided by 3.58, our arithmetic.
Who Decides at Nvidia
Nvidia’s bylaws, as amended on 12 March 2024, say: “All officers shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Directors and until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified, unless sooner removed”. They add that “If the office of any officer becomes vacant for any reason, the vacancy may be filled by the Board of Directors”. Section 13 says “no action shall be taken by the stockholders by written consent or electronic transmission”.
Between annual meetings, Section 6 lets the chairman, the chief executive or the board call a special meeting, and obliges the Secretary to call one on written requests from holders of at least 15% of the voting power who have “continuously owned” it “for at least one year”. Nvidia’s 2026 proxy counted 24,312,141,810 shares outstanding in March, so 15% is about 3.65 billion shares, by our arithmetic.
The proxy put the former chief executive’s holding at 870,604,104 shares, or 3.58%, which our founder-control comparison set against other founder-led companies.
The other shareholder route is the director ballot. Under the proxy access bylaw, a holder or a group of up to 20 holders owning at least 3% of the voting power for three years can put director nominees in Nvidia’s proxy materials. Directors, once elected, choose the officers.
Where the Board Stands
Nvidia’s Form 8-K of 12 November and its attached release say the former chief executive resigned as president, chief executive and a member of the board, and the board named Colette Kress interim chief executive “while the Board conducts a search for a new Chief Executive Officer”. The release said the board “will consider internal and external candidates”.
On 13 November the board told CNBC: “We are in the process of selecting a search firm for the Nvidia CEO role” and “We have not formally engaged any potential candidates”. Our piece on the board’s statement has the full wording; the statement came before Musk’s post, and CNBC’s article, as we read it at 19:40 UTC, does not mention a petition.
What the Markets Did
These are labelled market prices, not our forecast. On Polymarket, the market on whether the former chief executive rejoins Nvidia by 31 December 2026 was at 6.55% at 20:51 UTC, jumped to 14.35% at 21:03, more than double, and stood at 11.35% at 21:18. The market for a return by 31 December 2027, the before-2028 question, was at 31% at 20:51, fell to 24% at 20:54 and was 29% at 21:18. The 30 November market went from 2.95% to 4.35% at 21:03 and 4.25% at 21:18.
The rules count any “formal role within the corporate or governance structure of NVIDIA”, including “employment, executive, officer, director, formal advisory, or governance positions”, so a Yes does not require a return as chief executive. The markets are thin: at 21:19 UTC the 2027 market showed $7,162.99 of liquidity and the December 2026 market $15,620.62. We do not attribute any single price move to the post.
The Structural Read
As we read the numbers, signatures and votes measure different things: the Change.org page counted 215 verified signatures at 21:17 UTC and does not verify share ownership, while the special-meeting bar is set in voting power, about 3.65 billion shares by our arithmetic. Our founder-control comparison shows how little of Nvidia’s vote any single founder held.
As we read the market data, traders moved the December 2026 return price more than the before-2028 price: the first more than doubled within 12 minutes of the post and then gave part of it back, while the second was 2 points lower at 21:18 UTC than at 20:51. Our first piece on the exit has tracked these markets from the start.
“A petition is underway to reinstate Jensen and I’m signing it too”
Three Implications
FOR NVIDIA INVESTORS The board’s next fixed date is the third-quarter results on 17 November; the bylaws give shareholders no written-consent route, and a special meeting needs 15% of the vote held for a year. Our piece on the board’s statement has its latest words on the search.
FOR READERS OF THE COVERAGE Musk’s post does not name Nvidia or a role; the words “as CEO of Nvidia” came from relays. Our guide to the names reported so far lists who outlets have named.
FOR PREDICTION-MARKET READERS The rejoin markets resolve Yes on any formal role at Nvidia, not only chief executive, and held $7,162.99 to $16,401.92 of liquidity each at 21:19 UTC.
The framework describes the AI Supercycle as having “a layered industrial stack of nine layers, running from energy at the bedrock to governance at the ceiling”.
As we read it, who runs Nvidia is a decision at the governance ceiling of that stack about a company in its silicon layer, and the bylaws set who makes it. The framework does not discuss Nvidia’s board, the petition or Musk’s post.
What Is Not Established
Musk’s post does not say which petition it refers to, or whether Musk has already signed one; the Change.org page is the one linked in replies, not one the post names. The page does not verify share ownership, so the 215 signatures do not show how much of Nvidia’s vote supports the request.
The documents we read do not give the former chief executive’s view on returning, and they do not say whether Musk holds Nvidia shares. We did not contact Nvidia, Musk or the petition’s starter for this piece, and we leave out personal material.
This Week In The AI Supercycle
The Great Convergence of Capital, Power, and Geopolitics
This week’s issue: for two years the AI build-out was priced as a supply story, and last week as a credit story. This week it was priced as a permission story, and the answer arrived as a cost, not a ban.
Musk’s 12-word post had 387,278 views by 21:26 UTC, while the Change.org petition linked in replies had 215 verified signatures at 21:17 UTC. Nvidia’s bylaws give the choice to the board, which on Friday said it is still selecting a search firm; shareholders who want a say between annual meetings need 15% of the vote held for a year. Nvidia reports third-quarter results on 17 November; our first piece on the exit has tracked the story from the start.
A note on sourcing. Musk’s post and the post it replied to were read in full through api.fxtwitter.com and the X API between 21:12 and 21:26 UTC on 13 November; view counts are as those services returned them. The Change.org page was read in full at 21:17 UTC; its starter and the author of the post Musk replied to are private individuals, so we do not name them.
Nvidia’s bylaws (Exhibit 3.1 to its 8-K of 14 March 2024) and its 2026 proxy statement come from SEC EDGAR; the 8-K and release of 12 November were read in full that day; the board’s statement is quoted from CNBC’s article as read at 19:40 UTC. Market prices come from Polymarket’s public and price-history APIs, fetched at 21:19 UTC. Share counts, multiples and price changes are our arithmetic. We leave out personal material. We did not contact Nvidia, Musk or the petition’s starter for this piece.
Gennaro Cuofano is a CRO and tech executive who has worked in AI since late 2015, starting with bringing NLP, natural-language generation, voice and chatbot products to the marketing industry. His background is in law and finance: he holds a Master's degree in Law and an International MBA with an emphasis on corporate finance (LUISS Business School and the University of San Diego, 2012), and worked as a financial analyst at a real-estate investment firm in San Diego and as an assistant controller. His work focuses on business model strategy, business engineering and, more broadly, structural analysis: how companies make money, read from their own filings. He created FourWeekMBA and leads research there and at The Business Engineer, his newsletter on AI and business strategy, with over 95,000 subscribers and more than 1,000 published analyses. His writing has also appeared on Entrepreneur (for example, How to Digitize a Family Business in Europe) and HackerNoon. Find him on LinkedIn and Substack. See how we source.
