Nicki Minaj Had Every Right to Question the TIDAL Deal, And Eric Jackson Says the Numbers Support HER!

For years, Nicki Minaj has been criticized for asking uncomfortable questions about the music industry. 

Whether it’s ownership, streaming, publishing, contracts, or executive decisions, many of her comments have been dismissed as “ranting” or “being difficult.”

Now, venture capitalist and tech investor Eric Jackson is making an argument that has many fans saying what they’ve believed all along: 

Nicki was right and is still right in holding onto her point of view and personal beliefs!

The sign of a true leader is someone who can weather the storm of others not agreeing with them while boomeranging any and all hate and jealousy sent their way as jet fuel to succeed. 

Onika, is an excellent business woman, and because she is not willingly allowing peers to steal from her or defame her it allows her to be viewed as an even stronger leader with a steadfast mind and level of expertise across media, sneakers, nails, perfume, and technology. 

The real one’s, salute! 

“The bum bitches be hating, but it’s expected…it’s expected!” 

Now, when Shawn Carter sold TIDAL to Jack Dorsey’s Square (now Block) in 2021, headlines everywhere repeated one figure:

$297 million.

That became the accepted narrative.

But according to Eric Jackson, SEC filings tell a different story.

In a recent post, Jackson explained:

“Jack Dorsey bought Jay-Z’s Tidal for $297M. Everyone knows that number. The SEC filing says he paid $233M. For 86.8% of a company worth less than half its 2017 price…”

His point wasn’t simply that the number was different, it was that the structure of the transaction was far more complicated and sketchy than the public understood.

Nicki Minaj has previously questioned how the TIDAL acquisition was handled and whether artists received the transparency they deserved.

Critics often framed her concerns as personal grievances or unnecessary drama.

But if the publicly repeated sale price differs from what regulatory filings describe, it’s understandable why an equity holder would want answers.

Being upset doesn’t automatically mean someone is accusing others of wrongdoing.

It means they’re asking:

• How was the valuation determined?
• What was everyone actually paid?
• Why do public headlines and official filings appear different?
• Were all stakeholders given clear information?

Those are reasonable questions whenever millions of dollars and ownership stakes are involved.

Barbz, Romanz, & Kenz don’t forget our lunch meeting because it’s time to get into some-TINGZ!

Another day another slay!

Reign Queen Reign