Public information shows that at Tesla’s November 6, 2025 annual shareholder meeting, shareholders approved Elon Musk’s new “trillion‑dollar” compensation package with roughly 75% of votes cast in favor, according to preliminary results reported by multiple outlets.(kpbs.org)

Before the vote, however, there was significant, visible opposition that made outright rejection at least a live possibility:

• Major proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis both formally recommended that investors vote against the package, calling it excessively large and dilutive.(businessinsider.com)
• Norway’s sovereign wealth fund (one of Tesla’s largest shareholders) publicly announced it would vote against the deal, and other large funds and unions organized campaigns opposing it.(theguardian.com)
• Tesla’s own board chair, Robyn Denholm, warned in a pre‑meeting letter and media appearances that the company risked losing Musk if the plan was not approved, underscoring that the board itself viewed rejection as a real risk, not a remote theoretical possibility.(reuters.com)

Chamath’s statement was probabilistic and qualitative: that there was a risk / “meaningful chance” the package could be voted down, not that it would be voted down. A single observed outcome (approval) does not let us retrospectively measure the true ex‑ante probability to check whether that “meaningful chance” assessment was numerically accurate. At the same time, the documented opposition and warnings show there clearly was some genuine risk, but the eventual 75% approval margin could be read as evidence that the actual probability of failure may have been relatively low.

Because the claim is about the size of an ex‑ante probability and not about a definitive outcome, and because the realized vote result alone cannot confirm or falsify the exact probability he implied, the prediction cannot be cleanly scored as right or wrong. The fairest evaluation is ambiguous: enough time has passed and we know the outcome, but we still cannot determine from available evidence whether his “meaningful chance of rejection” assessment was quantitatively correct.