Concrete Duopoly (faux-choice): Investment implications

Concrete Duopoly = two branded options that route you to the same control surface: same monetization spine, same policy levers, same dependency stack.

Oct 15, 2025

two llamas in a field with a lake in the background — Photo by Joanna Borkowska on Unsplash

What it is

Concrete Duopoly = two branded options that route you to the same control surface: same monetization spine, same policy levers, same dependency stack. The “choice” is about aesthetics, tribe, and UX, not about power or outcome.

Why systems build duopolies (the three motives)

Antitrust camouflage: two logos absorb public pressure; regulators “balance” rather than restructure.
Operational stability: two interoperating giants coordinate upgrades, standards, and pricing without the chaos of fragmentation.
Entry deterrence: “There are already two” signals saturation; capital won’t fund a third rail unless subsidized by a state.

The anatomy (how faux-choice is constructed)

Shared spine: same issuers/acquirers (cards), same bottlers (soda), same cloud/CDN/CDP stack (apps), same data brokers (adtech).
Standards lock: private standards committees where the two incumbents set formats, fees, and certification paths.
Policy levers upstream: app stores, banks, clouds, OS permissions — the real gate sits above both options.
Switching tax symmetry: each side bakes migration pain; neither lets you exit the system.
Narrative bifurcation: distinct identities (“open vs closed”, “blue vs red”) to harvest different psycho-types into the same funnel.

Fast diagnostics (use this checklist)

Ask of any “choice”:

Who clears the transaction? (Same issuer/acquirer/settlement?)
Who sets the rules? (Same standards body, app store, bank, cloud?)
Where do margins converge? (Look at take rates and unit economics.)
What happens if you pick neither? (Is there a functional life outside both?)
Who can change the rules mid-game? (And do both accept those changes?)
Are defaults identical? (Auto-renew, data permission, arbitration clauses.)
Do both brands block the same behaviors? (Side-load, privacy, payments, speech.)
What’s the third rail’s fate? (Did past challengers get litigated, deplatformed, starved of distribution?)

If ≥5 answers collapse to “same controller”, you’re in a Concrete Duopoly.

Examples (beyond the obvious)

Finance & money

Visa vs MasterCard: Four-party model, same issuers/acquirers; scheme fees/take converge; both comply with identical KYC, sanctions, chargeback rules.
BlackRock vs Vanguard: Different branding on near-identical index exposure, shared market-making ecosystem; both vote proxies along similar stewardship frameworks.
Stablecoins (USDC vs Tether) in compliant venues: Both plug into the same bank/payment perimeters; each moves toward travel-rule and blacklist controls as venues require.

Compute & cloud

AWS vs Azure: Competing SKUs, but both gatekeep through compliance certifications, IAM models, and egress economics; buyers end up locked to the same audit logic.
NVIDIA vs AMD (datacenter AI): Different toolchains (CUDA vs ROCm), yet both sell to the same hyperscalers who throttle access and pricing; software portability keeps customers captive to hyperscaler policy, not vendor benevolence.

OS & attention

iOS vs Android: Two app-store sovereigns; identical enforcement muscles (payments, privacy sandboxes, API access, device attestation).
YouTube vs TikTok Shorts / Reels: Different vibes, same watch-time optimization, same advertiser constraints, same demonetization levers.

Telco & identity

AT&T vs Verizon / Vodafone vs Orange: Different brands, same lawful intercept obligations, same SIM/eSIM policy controls, similar throttling/zero-rating games.
Okta vs Entra (Microsoft) for workforce identity: Compete on UX, but both enforce the same compliance primitives (MFA, conditional access, device posture) that funnel you into identical audit universes.

Civic rail

Dem vs GOP (US), Tory vs Labour (UK): Different retail pitches; donor classes, ballot access rules, debate commissions, districting logistics lock outcomes into a narrow policy corridor.

Supply chains

FedEx vs UPS: Different brands, similar hub-and-spoke economics, surcharges, brokerage; customs/security regimes are shared constraints.
Airbus vs Boeing: Political offsets, duopoly on large frames; airlines trapped by training, spares, slot and financing ecosystems.

Controller patterns (how they sustain duopoly)

Standards & certification: turn choices into checklists that only two can afford to pass.
Perimeter governance: app stores/banks/clouds tweak Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs); both incumbents comply, challengers die.
M&A valve: buy fast-rising third rails early (or starve them of distribution).
Regulatory choreography: accept fines/consent decrees that codify the duopoly.
Default symmetry: both set the same defaults (auto-collect data, auto-renew, arbitration), so “choice” can’t escape the model.

Investment alpha (how to exploit faux-choice)

1) Buy the spine, not the brand war
Own the shared monetization layers: payments networks (V/MA), clouds (MSFT/AWS), compliance/lineage (PLTR/MSFT).

2) Long the compliance console
When two brands must comply identically, the console that proves compliance has pricing power. That’s Palantir (admissible decision lineage) and Microsoft (Compliance/Purview/Entra).

3) Be early to duopolies forming now

Programmable money: V/MA + stablecoin middleware + KYC wallets.
AI in regulated sectors: PLTR/MSFT; short notebook toys with no governance.

4) Hunt the third rail’s death throes
When a credible #3 is de-distributed (payments cut-offs, app-store blocks, cloud deplatform), it’s a tell: the duopoly is being cemented. Add to the spine owners on that signal.

5) Trade the optics cycles

Buy fear: hearings, antitrust headlines, civil-liberties lawsuits (stickiness isn’t impaired).
Sell clarity: post-settlement “we will do better” rallies — duopoly just got legally enshrined.

6) Follow the defaults
Where defaults converge (same take, same on-by-default compliance), pricing converges. That’s margin predictability you can underwrite.

Non-investment edge (how to avoid being steered)

Exit the funnel: ask “what happens if I choose neither?” If there’s no functional life outside both, treat the “choice” as a tax and price it accordingly.
Identify the real gate: who can flip your access without passing a law? Design around that entity (app store, bank, cloud, telco).
Create private heterodoxy: where you really need freedom (data, keys, comms), move off duopoly terrain (self-hosting, self-custody, federated tools). Use duopoly rails only for conversion to fiat-world needs.

Field guide: quick duopoly tests by domain

Money: Can I settle without Visa/Mastercard/ACH? If yes, who will still bank me?
Compute: Can I deploy without AWS/Azure? If yes, who certifies my compliance?
Distribution: Can I reach customers without Apple/Google stores? If yes, who will process payments?
Identity: Can I authenticate users without Okta/Entra? If yes, who signs my audits?
Civic: Can I get on the ballot, in the debates, on major platforms outside the two parties? If not, the “choice” is pageantry.

Counter-moves (when you must pick one of the two)

Choose the one with better export/portability (clean logs, exportable data, clearer APIs).
Negotiate on audit artifacts, not list price (SLAs for lineage, revocation, evidentiary-grade logging).
Minimize deep integration to retain optionality; push workload to the interoperable edge (standards, containers, neutral formats).
Exploit promotional asymmetry: the duopoly will subsidize switching to wound each other — harvest credits, but keep your exit clean.

The summary rule

If two rivals obey the same upstream gate and their margins converge, you’re not choosing power — you’re choosing packaging.
Own the gate. Rent the packaging only when you must.

Current outlook: PLTR > Bitcoin > Gold > MSFT > PANW.

None of this should be considered investment advice.

Other articles I’ve written on investing:

Other articles I’ve written on Bitcoin & Gold:

Subscribe:

Share: