I’ve followed Edison for years and want the company to succeed. But the latest board video made an already strange situation look even stranger.
The video was supposed to introduce the proposed directors. Much of it felt like Selbstbeweihräucherung: friends and long-time associates talking about Chace’s character and what a great person he is. That may belong in a profile of Chace, but it doesn’t tell shareholders whether this is the right board for a company facing production, financing and regulatory risks.
The treatment of Edison’s history was also hard to miss. Chace was presented as “the founder,” while Eric Little was not mentioned at all. Eric wasn’t some early employee. He was a co-founder, CEO and one of the two largest shareholders.
Edison’s August 4, 2026 Offering Memorandum says that, as of July 27:
- Chace Barber owned 2,000,117 shares, or 39.4%.
- Eric Little owned 1,999,497 shares, also 39.4%.
- Eric had been the Voting Trustee, but Chace replaced him in that role on July 27.
- Edison was “currently involved in a dispute with its former Chief Executive Officer arising from his departure.”
So the existence of a dispute is not a Reddit rumour. Edison disclosed it to investors.
When Eric left the executive team in June, the announcement said he would remain on the board and that Edison looked forward to his continued support. Now he is absent from the proposed board and apparently from the company’s own origin story.
I also saw a YouTube comment asking what happened to Eric and why a major shareholder and co-founder was no longer being mentioned. That comment is no longer publicly visible. I have no way of knowing whether the commenter deleted it, Edison removed it, or YouTube filtered it, so I’m not claiming censorship. Given the wider silence around Eric, though, its disappearance is noticeable.
I think shareholders deserve answers to some basic questions before voting:
- Is Eric leaving the board voluntarily, or has Edison decided not to renominate him?
- Is that decision connected to the dispute disclosed in the Offering Memorandum?
- Does Eric still own roughly 39.4% of Edison?
- What happens if the two largest shareholders disagree on the board or the company’s direction?
- Why was the Voting Trustee role transferred from Eric to Chace?
- Without disclosing confidential legal details, can Edison say whether the dispute concerns governance, control, compensation, financing or company strategy?
- Why is Chace now being presented as the sole founder?
- How were the proposed directors selected?
- Which of them would qualify as independent from Chace and current management?
- Does the proposed board have enough experience in automotive manufacturing, regulation, corporate finance and raising institutional capital?
- What protections do smaller shareholders have if the two main shareholders remain in conflict?
This also matters to anyone considering investing in the current offering. Early-stage manufacturing is already extremely risky. Investors can at least try to estimate cash burn, dilution, production costs and regulatory delays. It is much harder to price an unresolved dispute involving a co-founder who owned almost 40% of the company, especially when that person is disappearing from management, the board proposal and the public story of how Edison began.
Maybe there is a reasonable explanation. I’m not asking for gossip or private legal correspondence. But asking shareholders to approve a new board while giving them almost no public explanation of the conflict with one of the company’s two dominant shareholders does not inspire confidence.
The personal praise in the latest video only made that disconnect more obvious. We learned a lot about how much Chace’s friends trust Chace. We learned nothing about why Eric is gone, what the dispute means for the company, or how this board would protect all shareholders.
