• Andreessen Says More CEOs Should Follow Elon Musk’s Playbook — Even as Silicon Valley Divides Over His Management Model

Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen is urging today’s corporate leaders to rethink what modern leadership looks like — and to take cues from Elon Musk, whose mix of engineering obsession, personal branding, and confrontational style he says defines the new age of executive management.

Speaking on “A Cheeky Pint,” a podcast hosted by Stripe cofounder John Collison, the Andreessen Horowitz (A16z) cofounder said Musk’s unorthodox style has replaced the century-old leadership frameworks once taught in business schools. His argument was that Musk is the model for the new industrial class of technologists, not just a businessman but a system architect.

“I believe there are a lot of people who should be learning a lot more from him who cannot bring themselves to do it and to their own detriment,” Andreessen said.

Andreessen described Musk’s approach as an inversion of traditional corporate structures — one that sidelines middle management in favor of direct communication with technical staff.

“Basically, number one, it’s only engineers,” he said. “Your company, people who matter in your company are the engineers, the people who understand the technical content of what you’re doing for technology companies. And then you only ever talk to the engineers. You never ever ever talk to mid-level management.”

He admitted that few leaders could handle that level of technical oversight, noting that his A16z cofounder Ben Horowitz likens it to assuming the CEO can “hold the entirety of every engineering topic in their head at the same time.”

Still, Andreessen insisted that such talent is more common than people think. “I don’t know if it’s ten, a hundred, or a thousand,” he said. “But I tend to think we have more of those people than we think we do.”

The Cult of Personality Model

Andreessen said Musk’s influence extends beyond engineering management into how he fuses his identity with his companies.

“We’re not going to spend any money on marketing. We’re not going to put any time into IR,” he said. “What we’re going to do is we’re going to put on the show of all time. And the company, and the stocks, and the books, and the videos, and the products, and the jobs are all a function of the cult of personality.”

That approach — visible in how Musk dominates Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter) — has reshaped how Silicon Valley views corporate storytelling. Once centered on innovation and market data, success is now increasingly tied to the founder’s charisma and public presence.

Industry Divisions

But Andreessen’s endorsement of Musk’s management model comes amid growing division in Silicon Valley about whether Musk represents a visionary or a cautionary tale.

Some investors argue that Musk’s playbook is impossible to replicate, given his rare combination of engineering depth and risk appetite. Others warn that the “cult of personality” model is dangerous for companies whose valuation rests on one person’s behavior.

Musk’s political entanglements since the 2024 election underscore those risks. His de facto leadership of the White House DOGE office drew global protests, with Tesla showrooms targeted by demonstrators. His public feud with President Donald Trump over The Big Beautiful Bill sent Tesla’s stock tumbling earlier this year, forcing the company to issue statements reassuring investors about its long-term focus.

Despite that turbulence, Andreessen views Musk’s polarizing persona as a strategic advantage. “The thing you don’t want in any market is a lack of differentiation,” he said. “He 100% always has that.”

Legal Aggression as a Business Strategy

Andreessen also pointed to Musk’s aggressive legal posture as a defining part of his deterrence strategy.

“Anybody who goes up against us, we are going to terrorize, we are going to declare war,” Andreessen said. “And then, of course, as a consequence of declaring war, we’re not always going to win all the wars, but we’re going to establish massive deterrence. And so nobody will screw around with us.”

The comment reflects Musk’s history of combative legal tactics — from Tesla’s courtroom fights with shareholders to X’s battles over speech regulation. Andreessen suggested that even when Musk doesn’t prevail, the message of retaliation keeps competitors and regulators cautious.

Silicon Valley’s Broader Shift

Andreessen’s remarks highlight a deeper philosophical shift underway in Silicon Valley. As startups race to dominate fields like artificial intelligence, robotics, and space, investors are rewarding founders who lead with technical mastery and personality rather than managerial polish.

In recent years, leaders like OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Palantir’s Alex Karp, and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang have also blurred the line between executive authority and personal ideology — building brands around their vision as much as their products.

This mirrors a growing trend where venture capitalists favor “mission-driven” founders who cultivate an intense public following. Andreessen Horowitz, in particular, has been instrumental in backing such figures — from crypto entrepreneurs to AI pioneers — whose confidence and visibility resemble Musk’s template.

But as the market matures, critics warn of volatility tied to founder behavior. Some believe that the cult of personality can drive innovation or sink valuation, because when everything depends on one person, markets react to moods as much as milestones.

Andreessen contrasted Musk’s style with that of Alfred P. Sloan, the mid-20th-century General Motors chief whose systematic management principles became the blueprint for corporate America and inspired MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

In this new era, CEOs are expected not only to lead but to embody their companies — a dynamic Andreessen believes is critical for survival in what he calls “the attention economy.”

While it is not clear whether Musk’s model produces sustainable corporate governance or fuels crises, Andreessen believes that those who ignore his model are ignoring the direction in which leadership itself is moving.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) have announced a modest production increase of 137,000 barrels per day for November.

The agreement, which emerged from a brief but consequential meeting between Saudi Arabia and Russia — the two power brokers within the alliance — reflects an uneasy compromise. Riyadh, eager to defend its global market position, pushed for a more substantial hike, while Moscow preferred to hold back, wary of sending oil prices into a deeper slide.

Oil prices have been losing altitude in recent weeks, with Nigeria’s Bonny Light crude hovering around $69 per barrel and Brent trading near its lowest levels in four months. The market’s weakness is being driven by rising inventories, waning demand growth, and persistent macroeconomic uncertainty.

Even as OPEC+ sought to portray the move as a vote of confidence in global demand, analysts see it as a cautious step designed to prevent panic selling. Yet the underlying data tells a more complicated story.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that global inventories could swell through the end of the year and reach record levels by 2026, citing cooling demand in China, slower industrial activity in Europe, and surging production from the Americas.

Nigeria’s Tightrope

For Nigeria, the decision presents a familiar dilemma — the promise of increased output weighed against the threat of lower prices. As one of OPEC’s long-standing members and Africa’s largest oil producer, Nigeria stands to benefit from the slightly higher quota. However, its fiscal health remains vulnerable to fluctuations in prices.

The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) is banking on crude earnings to strengthen foreign exchange reserves and stabilize government revenue. But with oil prices slipping, those hopes could be challenged.

In anticipation of tighter margins, NNPC recently extended its crude supply deal with the 650,000-barrel-per-day Dangote Refinery for another two years. The agreement is meant to guarantee feedstock for the refinery and reduce Nigeria’s dependency on imported fuel — a critical step toward insulating the economy from global volatility.

However, that does not overshadow the unpredictability of the global oil environment. Reports of unsold cargoes from the Middle East are increasing, and futures markets are showing signs of weakness.

Shifting Strategies Inside OPEC+

The Saudi-Russian compromise is more than just a numbers game — it reflects deeper tensions within OPEC+, according to some analysts. Saudi Arabia, which carried much of the burden of past production cuts, is now signaling impatience. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s government appears eager to reclaim market share, especially as it prepares for next month’s Washington visit to meet President Donald Trump, who has been openly vocal about wanting lower oil prices to ease inflationary pressures.

At the same time, Russia’s alignment with a limited production boost shows its preference for price support as it continues to navigate sanctions and energy export restrictions.

The alliance’s production performance also exposes internal constraints. Of the 2.2 million barrels per day meant to be restored between May and September, barely 60% has materialized. Technical bottlenecks, overproduction penalties, and aging infrastructure have all limited the pace of recovery in several member nations.

Nigeria’s Output Gains

However, Nigeria’s oil production has shown steady improvement. Data from the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) shows that output in July 2025 averaged 1.71 million barrels per day — up 9.9% from a year earlier. The figure includes 1.507 million barrels of crude oil and 204,864 barrels of condensate.

Compared with June’s 1.69 million barrels per day, the increase is modest but significant, given years of operational challenges and pipeline sabotage. Forcados terminal led the recovery with 9.04 million barrels in July, up 2.1% from June, while Bonny terminal saw a sharper jump of 12.7%, producing 8.07 million barrels compared to 7.16 million in the previous month.

Even with production ticking upward, Nigeria — and OPEC+ more broadly — faces an increasingly fragile oil market. A continued glut is expected to push prices further down, eroding fiscal revenues and shaking confidence in the alliance’s management of supply.

Although the OPEC+ meeting lasted just nine minutes, the brevity of the session was itself telling. Delegates avoided public discussion of surplus risks, maintaining the group’s traditional optimism even as the IEA forecasts a possible record oversupply by 2026.

The next meeting, set for November 2, will determine whether the alliance sticks to its current cautious expansion or reverts to defending prices.

Investor appetite for crypto assets has surged again, as U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin and Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) drew more than $4.5 billion in net inflows last week, ending a brief lull and setting a bullish tone for October — a month traders often dub “Uptober” for its history of strong digital asset performance.

According to data from SoSo Value, Bitcoin ETFs accounted for roughly $3.2 billion of the total inflows, marking their second-largest weekly total on record, behind only the $3.37 billion peak of November 2024. The period also saw trading volumes surge to about $26 billion, a sharp uptick that analysts interpret as a sign of renewed institutional participation and growing conviction that an accumulation phase is underway.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led with $1.78 billion in inflows, followed by Fidelity’s FBTC at $692 million. Ark 21Shares drew $254 million, while Bitwise captured $212 million, signaling that both heavyweight asset managers and emerging ETF providers are benefiting from the wave of capital rotation into regulated crypto vehicles.

Meanwhile, Ethereum ETFs mirrored the momentum, bringing in $1.29 billion in inflows and generating nearly $10 billion in weekly trading volume. BlackRock’s ETHA dominated with $687 million, followed by Fidelity’s $305 million, Grayscale’s $175 million, and Bitwise’s $83 million.

Broader Market Recovery and Institutional Rotation

The synchronized surge across both Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs made last week one of the busiest in the history of crypto-linked ETFs. Analysts say the trend reflects a broader market recovery narrative — one that goes beyond short-term trading activity.

The shift is being interpreted as institutional portfolios rotating back into digital assets, aiming to position early in what could become a multi-quarter rally. This move coincides with signs of macroeconomic stabilization, as inflation in the U.S. shows a steady decline and global liquidity improves.

As a result, Bitcoin soared past $125,000, a new all-time high, underscoring how ETF-driven demand is doing more than fueling speculative trades — it’s laying the foundation for a new structural bull cycle.

Crypto research firm 10x Research described the magnitude of these inflows as “unprecedented,” adding that institutional behavior now looks materially different from past cycles.

“Behind the scenes, billions of dollars in ETF inflows and a quiet shift in institutional behavior suggest that this breakout may have deeper roots,” the firm said in a note. “Even regulators are adding fuel to the fire, with new tax guidance that caught corporate treasuries off guard.”

The report’s mention of tax policy changes refers to recent U.S. Treasury guidance clarifying how corporations should report digital asset holdings — a move that, while intended to tighten compliance, also legitimized crypto exposure on balance sheets for a growing number of companies.

 Bitcoin ETFs Versus Traditional Funds

In comparative terms, the $4.5 billion pulled into Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs last week stands out even within the broader U.S. ETF market. Traditional equity ETFs — including S&P 500 and Nasdaq trackers — have seen similar or smaller inflows during weeks of peak activity this year.

By percentage of assets under management (AUM), the inflows into crypto ETFs represent one of the fastest growth rates among all asset classes in 2025, according to Morningstar data. Analysts suggest this pace of capital movement underscores a structural shift in institutional portfolio diversification, where digital assets are no longer seen as fringe alternatives but as core holdings alongside equities and commodities.

Ethereum’s Catch-Up and Institutional Diversification

Ethereum’s inflows also mark a significant inflection point. For much of 2024, institutional ETF interest was almost exclusively concentrated in Bitcoin. But the $1.29 billion influx into Ethereum funds suggests that investors are beginning to broaden their exposure across the crypto spectrum, betting on the next leg of innovation — particularly in decentralized finance (DeFi), tokenized assets, and smart contract applications.

Ethereum’s performance is increasingly being viewed as complementary, not secondary, to Bitcoin. Institutions now see both as long-term hedges against monetary debasement and as parallel technologies underpinning future financial infrastructure.

Outlook: From “Uptober” to Year-End

With inflows accelerating and prices hitting record highs, the question now is whether this “Uptober” momentum can sustain through year-end. Analysts caution that profit-taking and macro shocks could still trigger volatility, but the consensus view is that institutional demand has shifted the market’s center of gravity.

In previous cycles, crypto rallies were often retail-driven and short-lived. This time, the participation of BlackRock, Fidelity, and other Wall Street giants is seen as anchoring long-term stability — and potentially redefining how the next bull market unfolds.

In the narrative of Africa’s development, there is a structural inversion we must accept: private companies will lead the charge before public institutions become truly capable. To hope that public institutions must be perfect before private enterprises can flourish is to misunderstand how nations have historically evolved.

Rockefeller invented the US oil sector before the government came to regulate. Vanderbilt was writing the script on the railways as the government followed, and Carnegie seeded steel making well beyond the understanding of the bureaucrats. You can see same in finance in the age of JP Morgan. In Nigeria, movie entrepreneurs created Living in Bondage before the government put out any regulation for Nollywood.

Simply, when you look back at some economies — whether in Europe, North America, or East Asia — you’ll discover that robust private firms often preceded the full maturation of efficient public institutions. Why? Because governments rely on tax revenue, investments, and economic vibrancy to build functional institutions. Without thriving companies generating value, there is no fuel for institutional evolution.

This was my concern in a piece in Harvard where I noted that Africa was urbanizing before industrialization, flipping centuries-old script that you industrialize, and then urbanize. As Lagos, Port Harbourt and Onitsha urbanize, the industries are even fading, triggering massive loss of social welfare.

So, we cannot demand flawless roads, world-class schools, or nimble regulatory bodies first, then build businesses — that path is a recipe for perpetual delay. Africa’s case is the same. We can—and should—lay down the entrepreneurial seeds even when many of the enabling conditions are suboptimal. The logic is simple: the success of private firms creates the resources and moral force with which states can upgrade institutions.

Good People, too often in African discourse we hear: “We must fix infrastructure, governance, education — then we can attract serious businesses.” But this is backward. Waiting for a perfect environment is a form of analysis paralysis. Governments are resource constrained; they cannot fix everything at once. In truth, public institutions often languish because there isn’t a thriving private sector to pay the piper.

In Nigeria, for instance, many critics say we must solve power, roads, or corruption before investing. But who pays for those fixes? Who generates the tax base? Who attracts the talent? Without strong and scalable private firms, these ambitions remain illusions.

Of course, many think Nigeria has a big purse. Our national budget is about the size of the healthcare budget of South Africa which spends close to $100 billion more in national budget even though it has about 30% of our population. Yes, I get it – how efficient are we the little we have?

Catalysts of Institutional Change

When private firms begin to scale, they do more than pay taxes: they pressure the state to respond. As corporations grow, they demand better regulation, consistency, predictable enforcement, and smart policies. When that pressure becomes real, governments are forced — or persuaded — to evolve.

Consider sectors that did not exist until entrepreneurial pioneers emerged. Those pioneers create markets, demonstrate value, and force governments to invent agencies, rules, and oversight bodies. Without those catalysts, institutions wait in the wings, hoping for charity or foreign aid.

The Chicken-and-Egg That Isn’t

Yes, institutions matter. Yes, without them, firms face headwinds. But there is no global case where first they built perfect public institutions, and then prosperous firms sprouted. Rather, industrious private actors often spring—even amid institutional weakness—and provide the very impetus for institutional reform.

Largely, my point is not that public institutions are unimportant; rather, their maturation is downstream of private sector dynamism. Simply, you must build and thrive to fund the stronger and efficient governments you expect!

A Strategic Prescription

1. Invest where you can now. Don’t wait for perfect infrastructure; find niches or sectors where friction is lower, and begin building.

2. Scale matters. Focus on firms that can grow across borders, exploit digital platforms, or leverage regional linkages.

3. Engage the state. Use the legitimacy and resources of growing firms to persuade governments to improve regulatory, legal, and administrative frameworks.

4. Build symbiosis. The ideal African development model is not top-down, nor purely laissez-faire, but a mutually reinforcing ecosystem of private excellence and responsive public institutions.

Conclusion

In African states, the path to better governance does not begin with perfect public institutions — it begins with bold, capable, scalable private enterprises. These firms create both the resources and impetus for states to step up. The road to stronger institutions in Africa passes through the thriving of private companies first. And so, for those who want to see African institutions become efficient and strong, the real work is in enabling — and investing — in private companies today.