> If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single company, but instead is a truly open system

> If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single company, but instead is a truly open system available to all, then that kind of market power cannot be built up around a data asset That's just so blatantly and obviously false it's rather remarkable that he wrote it. Absolutely nothing stops companies from becoming the dominant providers - aka big tech - that utilize said database at the application layer. Indeed that's exactly what will happen. You don't need to own the database to build a big tech monopoly on top of it. Microsoft didn't own the primary distribution channel for Windows 95, and they didn't own the hardware it ran on either. Google (search, circa 1999) didn't own the Internet, or the PC, or the operating system, or the cable line, or the telecom infrastructure, and so on. Consumers develop preferences, companies develop advantages (through superior products or other means), and the market dominance centralizes to one or a few providers. That's always inevitable short of government intervention. You don't have to own the database to build a monopoly on top of it. The better products (or via other leverage points) will win out and dominate and will be extraordinarily difficult to compete with, their advantage will become entrenched as their product gains in complexity and capability (ie competing with Google in 1998 was far easier than it would have been by 2012, as they scaled their capabilities and made enormous investments globally); the cost to keep up the with the winners soars and few will try (see: lack of dozens or hundreds of new competitors to Uber and Lyft, few are even trying at this point, the potential competition gives up for obvious reasons). Say hello to Coinbase & Co. We've already seen this process in action in crypto, many times over.