Cory Doctorow: The Monopoly Web Is Already Here – Latest Crypto Insights

One striking fact: a handful of firms control well over 70% of on-ramps and app distribution paths that connect users to crypto today.

The book argument from Cory Doctorow frames this as old-style monopoly behavior — buy rivals, fold vertically, and benefit from lax rules. That consolidation reshapes the internet and the way value flows in the world.

Trust failures at major institutions have widened a vacuum that platforms fill. This matters for crypto because networks meant to decentralize are now routed through dominant exchanges, payment rails, and app stores owned by a few big players.

In this article, we will test Doctorow’s thesis against present crypto trends. Expect analysis of platform extraction, publisher downranking, and how authors’ monopolies turn single hits into durable market power.

Key Takeaways

• The article links Doctorow’s monopoly thesis to real crypto risks around exchanges and app distribution.
• Consolidation, acquisitions, and vertical control explain much of Big Tech’s market power.
• Institutional trust collapse amplifies conspiratorial narratives that platforms spread.
• Crypto’s on-ramps and off-ramps are now chokepoints shaped by corporate incentives.
• We’ll explore practical policy and technical levers to restore competition and interoperability.

Setting the stage: why the “monopoly web” matters today

A few gatekeepers shape how people find, buy, and custody crypto today.

People want quick clarity on markets, regulation, and real-world use. They ask how consolidation affects custody, fees, and basic access. This section explains those pressures in plain terms.

How attention and discovery change: algorithmic feeds and closed app ecosystems make off-platform analysis harder to surface. That makes it tougher for people to vet projects or follow dissenting views.

Apps moved the web from open pages to wrapped, controlled systems. Identity, audiences, and data get trapped inside a company’s walled garden. Users lose exit rights and the simple way to bookmark or archive important links.

“Web-pages wrapped in IP criminalize routine defenses and preserve predation.”

• Closed systems increase surveillance and targeted nudges that shape markets.
• Wallet integrations, exchange listings, and mobile distribution are filtered by platform rules.
• Open standards like ActivityPub offer a counterpoint that preserves discoverability.

Readers should leave this section with a clear sense of the constraints crypto faces and the kinds of tools and rights that can restore user leverage in the world ahead.

Doctorow’s challenge to surveillance capitalism orthodoxy

Doctorow reframes platform control as a legal and market problem, not a magic trick. He argues that capitalism’s current harms arise from deals, acquisitions, and weak enforcement more than from mystical “mind control.”

Old-fashioned monopolies vs. “mind-control” narratives

Surveillance capitalism tells a story of persuasion through data. Doctorow counters that the real engine is classic monopoly building: buy rivals, lock distribution, and set the rules of discovery.

• Platforms gain power via M&A, exclusive deals, and control over app rails.
• A lot of extraction happens when law enforcement is lax and mergers go unchecked.
• Downranking and pay-to-reach replace organic discovery for small publishers and people.

Trust collapse, institutional failure, and conspiratorial thinking

Public failures by regulators and institutions prime distrust. That distrust fuels conspiratorial takes and makes crypto look like an exit from centralized control.

“Concrete legal and market fixes — antitrust and pro-competitive law — can undercut monopoly behaviors that shape crypto on-ramps.”

How platforms “enshittify” the internet

Digital firms use rapid rule changes to move benefits from ordinary users to paying customers and shareholders. This staged decay—what Doctorow calls enshittification—starts with generous onboarding, then shifts value to business customers, and finally extracts for investors.

Rent seeking, predatory pricing, and vertical consolidation

Predatory pricing hides intent behind cheap or free services. Companies subsidize rides or shipping to crowd out rivals, then raise take rates once users and partners are locked in.

From user surplus to shareholder extraction: the twiddling playbook

Product teams can “twiddle” controls overnight. They change visibility, monetization, or API access to favor paying partners. That agility gives platforms an edge analog firms lack.

Downranking links, algorithmic control, and publisher squeeze

Platforms downrank off-site links and favor native posts. The result: independent projects, wallets, DEX front-ends, and crypto education lose discoverability.

Search and feed algorithms optimize for engagement and ad revenue, not expert content. This shift reduces traffic to outside publishers and raises ad prices for everyone but the dominant company.

“Enshittification converts user surplus into revenue with minimal churn once rivals are weakened.”

Practical impact: wallets, news links, and tutorials depend on fair discovery to reach new users. When platforms throttle links or require pay-to-reach, the whole crypto stack—on-ramps, DEX interfaces, and learning resources—suffers.

For more on the staged decline and its effects, see this discussion of enshittification.

Crypto through Doctorow’s lens: promise, performative complexity, and cons

Complexity often substitutes for proof in crypto pitches, and that trick matters more than shiny demos.

MEGO—My Eyes Glaze Over—is a tactic that uses dense whitepapers and jargon to make projects seem sound.

Readers skim math and assume substance. That habit lets weak designs and hidden fees slip past scrutiny.

“MEGO” and the sleight of hand behind crypto narratives

Partial truths about cryptography or money are stretched into grand claims of censorship resistance.

That sleight of hand masks simple business aims: lock distribution, favor certain products, and secure monetization.

Secure enclaves and remote attestation: when control flips against users

Secure enclaves protect code execution in hardware, but they can also prevent owners from running alternate clients.

Remote attestation lets a third party verify you run approved code. Employers or platforms can then enforce rules.

This stack turns privacy and control into a vendor decision, and it enables baked-in tracking or blocked wallets.

“When compliance is built into chips, opt-out becomes impossible.”

Feature	Promise	Risk
MEGO (whitepapers)	Signals rigor	Masks weak economics
Secure enclave	Protects code integrity	Can deny alternate clients
Remote attestation	Verifies environment	Enables external mandates
Trusted wallets	Simplify UX	Exclude privacy-preserving apps

Doctorow’s book and fiction examples show how story clarifies real harms. People often defer to influencers or exchanges when docs induce MEGO.

Pragmatic skepticism: demand open audits, verifiable exit rights, and the freedom to run your own client without hidden surveillance.

Up-to-date crypto landscape: markets, regulation, and real-world use

U.S. crypto activity today mixes cautious institutional entry with ongoing retail cycles tied to macro signals.

Current market sentiment and institutional moves in the United States

Institutional players are testing custody, tokenization, and ETF/ETP products while monitoring compliance costs. Large banks and asset managers pilot settlement proofs and custody services to offer on-ramps for people and enterprises.

Retail interest still swings with liquidity and policy cues. Meanwhile, firms that provide custody and execution adjust pricing and spreads across jurisdictions to reflect heavier compliance burdens today.

Regulatory pressure points: securities scrutiny, stablecoins, and exchanges

Law and enforcement focus on securities classification, exchange registration, and broker-dealer obligations. Agencies press companies on travel-rule alignment, enhanced reporting, and sanctions screening.

Stablecoins draw scrutiny over reserve quality, audits, and state versus federal oversight as they play a growing role in the broader economy.

Area	Trend	Practical effect
Institutional adoption	Custody pilots, ETFs/ETPs	More regulated on-ramps for users and companies
Regulation	Securities tests, exchange rules	Higher compliance costs and constrained product launches
Pricing & liquidity	Variable spreads, fee pressure	Differences by company and jurisdiction
Platform mediation	App store and payment rail limits	Raised user acquisition costs and gated features

Doctorow’s framework helps explain why concentrated ownership and common control among big tech and finance firms can limit competition. Antitrust and product-level law remain essential levers to protect discoverability and exit rights.

“Interoperability and clear legal rules can restore choice while preserving safety.”

The open web vs. apps and the metaverse: stakes for crypto’s future

Durable links and open protocols keep crypto education discoverable in ways closed apps cannot.

Open architectures let people follow citations, archive pages, and audit code by hopping between sites. That linkability makes wallets, tutorials, and developer docs verifiable across time.

By contrast, modern apps and metaverse stacks centralize curation and raise barriers. Closed terms often bar archiving or reverse engineering. That reduces long-term recall and raises the cost of independent review.

“When content is trapped inside a runtime, verifying claims or exporting data becomes much harder.”

Algorithmic feeds downrank off-site content and mute deep guides. Sensor-heavy metaverse devices add surveillance vectors that harm user privacy and anonymous research.

• Open standards preserve discoverability and federation across apps.
• User agency — running your client, exporting data, choosing software — sustains resilient ecosystems.
• Without these rights, crypto risks shifting toward captive, custodial offerings dominated by a few platforms.

The way forward: protect linking, demand open APIs, and favor federated systems so the internet remains a place where crypto can be learned, audited, and trusted today.

Antitrust, copyright, and platform power: what changes competition

When many small copyrights stack up under one roof, that roof becomes a gatekeeper for entire markets. Copyright and IP exclusivities let a company convert scattered rights into repeatable leverage.

Authors’ monopolies, IP leverage, and pricing power

Authors’ monopolies mean entertainment conglomerates and publishers can set prices and litigate rivals into silence. Legal monopolies let a firm block competing interfaces or charge tolls for reuse of content.

That legal firepower raises costs for educators, museums, and GLAM partners. It also reduces the incentives to build open tools that improve crypto literacy.

Capital concentration, cross-sector control, and access

When the same investors control stakes across airlines, hotels, apps, and exchanges, incentives to compete fall. Cross-sector ownership can translate into coordinated pricing and limited entry for rivals.

“Surveillance and tracking let platforms steer traffic and extract value from publishers that depend on discovery.”

Antitrust enforcement can limit roll-ups and protect new entrants. Targeted law and transparency rules on data-driven tying would help restore wallet interoperability and fair listing access on exchanges.

• Copyright aggregation creates legal barriers to rival interfaces and forks.
• Antitrust action can reopen markets and reduce pricing power for big companies.
• Stronger government enforcement on vertical deals supports resilient on/off-ramps in crypto.

In practice, IP reform plus platform transparency would lower the cost of learning resources and make it easier for new firms to compete. That shift matters for the broader economy because it preserves user choice and protects market entry for startups and researchers.

Four levers to reverse monopoly dynamics: markets, law, code, norms

Fixing concentrated control means building tools and rules that let users take their identity and data elsewhere. These four levers work together to restore competitive market incentives and protect user access.

Interoperability and exit rights

Adopt ActivityPub-style portability so followers, contacts, and profiles move with users. Exit rights must cover identity, message delivery, and follower lists.

Legal reforms and enforcement

Enforce antitrust to stop roll-ups and predatory pricing. Require data export and fair API access so new entrants can compete on merit.

Open standards, privacy, and norms

Build defaults that protect privacy and limit surveillance tracking. Reward companies that publish uptime, data-use policies, and non-discrimination audits.

“End-to-end delivery and simple portability tests give regulators a way to measure compliance without policing speech.”

• Markets: fund wallets, nodes, and analytics that commit to portability.
• Code: open APIs and ActivityPub-like bridges for wallets and communities.
• Norms: expect privacy-first defaults and exportable social graphs.
• Accountability: periodic audits on portability, API uptime, and fair search access.

Conclusion

What looks like technical inevitability often hides deliberate business decisions by big players. Doctorow’s story links that design choice to predictable monopoly outcomes across the internet and the crypto world.

To protect users, prioritize three things: enforceable exit rights, open APIs, and simple portability tests that regulators can verify.

Companies win when service quality matters, not when platforms trap people with closed runtimes, forced fees, or downranking that harms independent content and crypto research.

After years of drift, reversing this requires coordinated policy, product fixes, and antitrust action so rivals can compete and search stays fair.

Actionable part list: adopt open standards, demand data portability, support antitrust enforcement, and build privacy-first defaults. Fiction can warn us, but law and code must do the work now.

FAQ

What does "monopoly web" mean in Cory Doctorow’s discussion?

In Doctorow’s framing, the “monopoly web” refers to a set of dominant platforms and firms that control access, data, pricing, and distribution on the internet. These companies use market power, surveillance practices, and technical design to lock in users and extract value from creators, publishers, and rivals.

How do platforms "enshittify" services, and what are common tactics?

“Enshittification” describes a predictable cycle: platforms first attract users with a good experience, then prioritize monetization and rent-seeking. Tactics include predatory pricing, vertical consolidation, downranking third-party links, algorithmic control that favors platform-owned content, and shifting user surplus into shareholder extraction.

Is crypto a solution to platform concentration according to Doctorow?

Doctorow is skeptical. He acknowledges crypto’s promise for decentralization but warns of performative complexity—where tokens and protocols appear user-empowering while enabling new forms of control. He highlights risks like MEGO (my eyes glaze over) narratives and secure enclaves that can invert user control into vendor control.

What is MEGO and why is it important when evaluating crypto projects?

MEGO stands for “my eyes glaze over.” It describes technical language or hype that obscures real trade-offs. In crypto, MEGO can hide centralized control, governance weaknesses, or revenue models that re-create monopolistic dynamics despite claims of decentralization.

How do surveillance and data access factor into platform power?

Control of data and tracking enables platforms to personalize, predict, and monetize behavior. Exclusive datasets create barriers for rivals, allow differential pricing, and increase switching costs for users. Surveillance capacities also power targeted advertising and influence over content visibility.

What role do antitrust and copyright laws play in addressing digital monopolies?

Antitrust can constrain mergers, break up anti-competitive structures, and enforce interoperability. Copyright law affects creators’ leverage and platforms’ control over distribution. Combined reforms—stronger competition enforcement and calibrated IP rules—can reduce concentrated pricing power and gatekeeping.

What practical legal or technical levers could restore competition?

Four key levers are markets, law, code, and norms. Markets: promote interoperability and alternatives. Law: enforce antitrust and mandate data portability. Code: adopt open standards like ActivityPub to enable exit and choice. Norms: rebuild pro-pluralistic practices around privacy and user agency.

How does ActivityPub or Mastodon fit into the interoperability solution?

ActivityPub is an open protocol that enables federated social networks like Mastodon. It gives users control over identity and data portability, lowers lock-in, and allows diverse services to interoperate. This approach demonstrates how standards can shift power away from single dominant platforms.

What are the main regulatory pressure points for crypto in the United States?

Regulators focus on securities classification, stablecoin stability and issuer reserves, exchange compliance, and consumer protections. Enforcement by the SEC, CFTC, and state regulators targets fraud, unregistered offerings, and opaque custody practices that could harm investors and users.

Can market forces alone curb platform dominance?

Market forces help but often fail against entrenched network effects, large capital reserves, and cross-sector control. Competition needs legal frameworks, interoperable standards, and cultural shifts that prioritize privacy and pluralism to meaningfully rebalance power.

How do authors’ monopolies and IP leverage affect pricing and access?

Dominant publishers or platforms can use exclusive rights and distribution channels to set prices, limit access, and concentrate revenues. When IP is bundled with platform services, creators may lose bargaining power and face opaque payment terms or restrictive licensing.

What should readers watch for in the crypto market now?

Watch institutional moves into custody and trading, regulatory outcomes on stablecoins and token classification, and real-world adoption of on-chain payments. Also assess projects for genuine decentralization, governance transparency, and whether they improve user autonomy or recreate centralization.