Overton Window Management in Investing (where the Alpha really is)
It isn’t about being edgy; it’s about pricing reality the memos can’t print.
The biggest edge in investing comes from knowing where control is exercised without saying so — at standards, perimeters, and defaults — and owning the companies that sell the knobs.
In general, Overton Window Management means narrowing the range of “acceptable” ideas so real choices occur inside a preselected corridor.
In finance, Overton Window Management means that in some cases:
Conspiracy = Asymmetry
For example, imagine that your thesis is technocracy + Palantir.
This is considered fringe because most allocators explicitly dismiss “technocracy” framing as paranoid, even though the building blocks (CBDCs, AI-driven surveillance, digital ID rollouts, Palantir in defense/healthcare/finance) are visible in plain sight. This disbelief is exactly why it’s not fully priced in.
And yes, there is a difference between Insiders and Retail:
Certain defense/intelligence-aligned funds (DAFs) and government-linked allocators already understand this - and their footprints show in Palantir’s sticky institutional ownership. But their weighting is cautious, partly because they can’t openly market the technocracy thesis to Limited Partners (LPs).
It would sound insane in an investment memo. This leaves most of the upside still uncovered.
The Market today might be implicitly pricing the technocracy + Palantir thesis at <15% probability”.
So, a lot of what looks like “conspiracy” is just asymmetry you can’t write in an LP memo — but the plumbing is already being installed in public.
Why this alpha exists
Limited Partner (LP) memos sanitize reality. Most institutional allocators won’t submit “we’re buying the operating system of technocracy”. They’ll write “mission-critical data fusion for regulated sectors”. That euphemism keeps position sizes small until (a) standards synchronize and (b) index committees bless the name. You get paid to act before it’s polite to say the quiet part.
Constraints > beliefs. Portfolio Managers are bound by tracking-error limits, ESG optics, consultant models, and career risk. That systematically under-weights anything adjacent to state control, surveillance, or coercion - even when the unit economics are stunning.
Examples of Overton Window Management in investing
Programmable Money Normalization → Stablecoins now, CBDCs later
Impolite: Herd retail into ID-bound, blacklist-able money, then make policy parameters (tax split, spend limits) default.
Memo: “Faster, safer payments with built-in compliance”.
Content Authenticity / Provenance Mandate (C2PA-everywhere)
Impolite: Make all important media signable, traceable, and revocable.
Memo: “Combat deepfakes; restore trust online”.
Online Safety -> Age/ID Gating for the Web
Impolite: ID to read/post becomes normal; anonymity pushed to the edges.
Memo: “Protect children; reduce harm”.
Critical-Infra Cyber with Liability Shift
Impolite: Make operators liable -> buy policy-grade security underwritten by insurers.
Memo: “Minimum cyber standards for critical sectors”.
Courts-Ready AI (Admissibility > Accuracy)
Impolite: AI is deployed only where it produces signed, auditable artifacts that survive discovery.
Memo: “Responsible AI with governance”.
These theses can’t be marketed in their true form, which is exactly why they’re often misweighted.
The edge is to figure out the quiet part, early - and allocate where policy intent, perimeter power, and product readiness already intersect.
The truth often can’t be said out loud because people are not allowed to.
However, alpha exists for those who know the forbidden truth.
How to spot “Conspiracy = Asymmetry” early
If all these three light up, you’ve got a “can’t-market-it” thesis with real cash flow:
Policy intent is written down (draft standards, executive orders, regulator speeches, pilot RFPs).
Pilot RFPs refer to small-scale preliminary requests for proposals used to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a project before full-scale implementation.
Interesting to know: As of 2025, there are 49 Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) pilot projects around the world. Additionally, 72 countries are in the advanced phase of exploring CBDCs, which includes development, pilot, or launch stages. These countries equate to 97% of global GDP.
Perimeter leverage exists (app stores, banks, clouds, ISPs, payment networks can enforce it without a new law).
Vendor readiness is live (products already ship the needed knobs: identity, policy lineage, revocation, audit, settlement).
The edge: read the policy intent + perimeter leverage + vendor readiness triad before the memos can.
When all three light up, you’ve got a “can’t-market-it” thesis with real cash flow coming.
This isn’t about being edgy; it’s about pricing reality the memos can’t print. Follow Overton Window Management: what’s becoming default? Who owns the switches (ID, provenance, audit, programmable money)? That’s where the compounding lives.
More context on my State-Embedded investment thesis:
None of this should be considered investment advice.
If this article seems like “crazy conspiracy theories” to you and you’re intellectually honest, do some research on defense-aligned funds (DAFs).
Subscribe to the free tier:
Share: