On September 3, 2026, Tesla began a survey of interest aimed at fleet buyers, asking companies whether they would like to purchase Cybercab vehicles and operate them on its Robotaxi network. Under the proposal presented, the company purchases the vehicles and then places them on the network to operate as self-driving taxis, sharing the revenue with Tesla.
However, this model brings back a promise previously made by Elon Musk in 2019, when he discussed the possibility of adding owners’ cars to the “Tesla Network” and generating up to $30,000 in annual gross profit per vehicle. That same year, he also described Tesla cars as “appreciating assets” whose value could increase as the capabilities of Full Self-Driving (FSD) improved.
An Old Promise That Has Not Become an Available Service
The article says that this promise has not been fulfilled so far. Some owners paid as much as $15,000 for FSD based on the expectation of future income from taxi services, but years later they still had no ability to operate their cars as robotaxis. Instead, Tesla operates the service itself, while individual buyers have continued waiting for the promised operating model.
The article cites the case of MisterGreen, a Dutch leasing company that purchased more than 4,000 Tesla vehicles, relying on their retaining their value and on the possibility of future income from robotaxi services. However, Tesla reduced the prices of new cars over a period of two years, and used cars began losing value at a rate said to be nearly three times that of the broader used-car market. Robotaxi income did not materialize, and MisterGreen declared bankruptcy in December 2025, with losses of $40 million for its bondholders.
What Changes in Practice?
Electrek’s reading is that purchasing a Cybercab does not necessarily give the buyer control over an independent business; instead, it may make the buyer a financier of its basic costs. According to the article, Tesla controls the vehicle, software, Robotaxi network, dispatch and pricing system, and revenue-sharing percentage. The buyer therefore bears the capital cost and the risk of declining vehicle values, while Tesla retains the vehicle-sale revenue, its share of fares, and software margins.
The article also points to a potential imbalance in the competitive relationship: the entity that owns the platform can, in this view, adjust prices or the revenue share, prioritize its own vehicles within the app, or geographically restrict the operation of buyers’ vehicles. These are not minor operational details; they determine the fleet owner’s ability to build a business model with predictable returns.
Why Does This News Matter?
The importance of the development does not lie in the existence of an interest form itself, since the source provides no evidence of broad sales launches or of Cybercab generating actual revenue. More important is testing the economic assumption behind the offer: if robotaxi fleets generate high and stable income, why does Tesla need to sell the vehicles and place the cost of purchasing and depreciating them on another party?
This is an analytical question, not conclusive evidence that the model is unviable. The company may sell the vehicles for financing or operational reasons, or to expand the network quickly, but the source provides no figures for the Cybercab’s price, maintenance costs, Tesla’s share of revenue, utilization rate, or the conditions for joining the network. Without this data, the fleet’s actual return cannot be assessed.
Editorial Conclusion
Electrek believes that the Cybercab offer resembles a transfer of risk to the fleet buyer while leaving basic economic control with Tesla, linking it to the record of previous promises concerning FSD income and the “Tesla Network.” For companies considering the offer, the most important practical point is to treat it as a high-risk investment rather than guaranteed income until Tesla clearly publishes the operating terms, financial figures, and rights of fleet owners.
The writer also mentions another company that built a Tesla fleet in Los Angeles between 2018 and 2020 in preparation for “Tesla Network” revenue, then was later forced to shut down, without providing its name or additional financial details. This reference therefore still requires independent verification before being used as additional evidence.