Looking back to paragraphs 24 and 25, which underlying his claims....

I'm not conceived that providing funding to a non-profit creates a contract (first cause) or establishes grounds for promissory estoppel (second cause) just because of the content of the articles of incorporation.

Articles can be amended, so I don't see how he can allege reliance, which is required for promissory estoppel. That they weren't doesn't make a difference. It's that they could have been. He also knew they could be. So he couldn't rely on them. (Note he's not alleging fraud, that the representations were false at the time made, that's a whole different can of worms).

I'm also not convinced it creates a contract, because if it did, it would make musk akin to a de facto shareholder with equitable rights in the companies use of its property.