NATSEC Roundtable No. 9: Capital, Cloud, and Commerce

This is the new defense stack, and the best venture capital firms in the country (re: world) enable it. 

American military and intelligence capabilities no longer originate solely in the Pentagon or within the legacy defense primes. It is increasingly assembled across three layers that sit outside traditional procurement: venture capital, cloud infrastructure, and modern commerce platforms (B2B-primarily). Each layer operates commercially, and each layer is indispensable to national power. Each layer is quietly shaping how modern national defense is built, coordinated, and sustained.

The emerging defense ecosystem is best understood not as a weapons system, but as a technology stack: capital funds it, cloud computes it, commerce distributes it. Together, they form the invisible scaffolding beneath the visible battlefield.

To see this clearly, it helps to begin with the investors who explicitly finance national security innovation. These firms are not opportunistic participants. They are mandate-driven actors who have chosen to organize themselves around American security as a core thesis.

Mandate-explicit capital for national security

The table below captures the U.S. venture investors that publicly state a defense, national security, or dual-use mission. This is not a generalist list. It excludes firms that occasionally invest in defense. It includes only those whose identity, fund structure, or published thesis explicitly centers on national security.

FirmCategoryHow the mandate is stated:Primary domains they name
In-Q-Tel (IQT)Strategic / government-adjacentExists specifically to identify and scale commercial technology for the U.S. national security community and allied agenciesAI, data, cyber, sensors, space, advanced analytics
a16z – American DynamismLarge platform with dedicated practiceRuns a named practice and fund explicitly focused on “the national interest,” including defense and aerospaceAerospace, defense systems, industrial tech, frontier science
Shield CapitalDefense specialist VCPositions itself at the intersection of commercial tech and national securityAI, autonomy, cyber, space, robotics
Razor’s Edge VenturesDefense specialist VCStates its core mission is backing companies that solve major national-security challengesCyber, space, data, sensing, dual-use infrastructure
Decisive PointDefense / critical tech VCPublicly frames itself as investing in technologies critical to defense, energy, and national resilienceDefense tech, energy, infrastructure, advanced hardware
Scout VenturesDual-use frontier VCExplicitly focuses on founders from the military, intelligence community, and national labs building dual-use techAI/ML, robotics, space, security, advanced materials
8VC (Government & Defense focus)Large platform with explicit defense thesisMaintains a distinct government/defense investing effort and teamDefense systems, autonomy, logistics, industrial tech
Point72 Ventures (defense positioning)Growth/late-stage VCPublicly describes itself as a dedicated partner to next-generation defense-tech companiesAI, autonomy, sensors, secure software
DataTribeCyber-security foundryDescribes itself as bridging Silicon Valley and the Intelligence Community to strengthen U.S. cyber capabilityCybersecurity, secure infrastructure, national labs spinouts
Paladin Capital (Cyber Fund)Security VCExplicitly focuses on “Digital Infrastructure Resilience” and protection of critical systemsCyber, critical infrastructure, secure networks
NightDragonSecureTech VCStates that it invests in SecureTech including defense, national security, and advanced cyberCyber, AI security, quantum, defense software
Lux CapitalFrontier science VCPublicly frames recent funds as operating at the intersection of frontier science and national securitySpace, AI, advanced manufacturing, energy
DCVC (Data Collective)Deep-tech VCPublishes theses explicitly linking its investments to strengthening U.S. defense innovationAI, robotics, space, autonomy, industrial tech
Riot VenturesIndustrial modernization VCPublic materials and reputable coverage consistently describe a focus on modernizing sectors including defense/aerospaceIndustrial automation, robotics, aerospace supply chain
J2 VenturesDual-use VCWidely described in top-tier reporting as a specialist in dual-use (civilian + government) technologySpace, sensing, autonomy, secure hardware

This capital layer explains why so many new defense companies look like software startups rather than defense contractors. They raise venture rounds, hire engineers from Big Tech, and think in terms of platforms rather than programs. They build products that scale beyond a single government customer. They compete for talent with Silicon Valley instead of only with traditional primes.

What this table also shows is something more structural. National security is no longer financed solely through appropriations. Rather, it is financed through private markets that expect growth, returns, and global impact. The defense ecosystem is now a hybrid of public mission and private capital logic.

Where commerce enters the defense stack

Capital creates companies. Commerce determines how those companies present themselves to the world. When defense and national-security firms like Anduril or Palantir use Shopify, they are rarely selling weapons. They are building culture, community, and lightweight industrial distribution.

The table below captures verified defense and national-security companies that operate Shopify-based stores restricted to merchandise or non-weapon catalogs. These are official or clearly authorized storefronts, not third-party novelty sites.

CompanyStore domainStore typeWhat it sells (high level)Shopify verification
Palantir Technologiesstore.palantir.comPublic merchBranded merch storeCookie banner references Shopify as a partner
Anduril Industriesandurilgear.comPublic merchBranded “Anduril Gear” store (apparel/accessories/relics)Anduril job listing explicitly cites gear-store tech stack including Shopify
General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works (BIW)gdbiwstore.comPublic/employee merchBIW-branded merchandise with employee discountsOfficial BIW communications reference the Shopify store
Raytheon Technologies (program store instance, operated by vendor)garmentgraphics.net/pages/raytheon-technologies-pmxAuthorized program storeBranded program merchandise fulfillmentFooter explicitly shows “Powered by Shopify”
L3Harris (OceanServer)oceanserver-store.myshopify.comOfficial catalog store (non-weapon items)Compasses, Li-ion battery systems, related equipmentFooter states “Powered by Shopify”
Leidos (Australia)leidosstore.comBranded merch (regional)Leidos Australia branded apparelFooter notes Shopify operation on behalf of Leidos Australia

These stores reveal a consistent pattern. Defense companies use Shopify to build identity and simplify commerce, not to move regulated hardware. The opportunity for development agencies, here, is therefore not about compliance policing, but about elevating brand, experience, and operational design.

Four layers of lethality-adjacent commerce

It is useful to conceptualize this ecosystem as four nested layers rather than one undifferentiated market.

Layer 1 is the brand layer.

These are traditional defense primes and new defense-tech challengers whose core business is national security. Their online usage centers on apparel, patches, posters, collectibles, recruiting gear, and limited drops. Their stores function as cultural artifacts rather than distribution channels for critical hardware.

For eCommerce development agencies, this is fundamentally a brand and community play. These companies expect premium design, sophisticated storytelling, and frictionless UX. Their audiences are employees, alumni, recruits, and a small but influential public following. Success here is measured in cultural resonance, not units shipped.

Layer 2 is the industrial layer.

These are subsystem suppliers that build components for larger defense architectures. They produce sensors, batteries, navigation tools, robotics, and marine hardware. Via eCommerce: they follow two patterns. Some are merch-first, mirroring the primes. Others operate non-weapon B2B catalogs that look more like industrial storefronts than consumer brands.

These catalogs tend to prioritize functionality over aesthetics. They feature technical specifications, tiered pricing, and basic checkout flows. The strategic opportunity is operational. Agencies can add value through better B2B UX, custom pricing logic, ERP integration, and wholesale workflows that reduce friction for engineering customers.

Layer 3 is the regulated-adjacent layer.

This includes optics, night vision, lasers, and mounts. Most commerce in this category is not centered on Shopify today; frankly BigCommerce and Adobe have an outsized share. Companies rely on specialized distributors, government channels, law enforcement relationships, military procurement routes, legacy eCommerce stacks, and custom builds.

When companies like Shopify appears in this layer, it is usually supplementary. Some may maintain merch-only Shopify storefronts while keeping core product sales elsewhere. The strategic implication is straightforward; Shopify is under-penetrated in this segment. There is room for growth if platforms and agencies can serve this sector responsibly while modernizing experience and back-end architecture. EOTech has recently migrated to Shopify Plus’ Leupold Optics is in the process of doing the same, with the help of Colorado and Ohio’s MTN Haus.

Layer 4 is the highest-risk layer.

This includes firearms, ammunition, and serialized parts. Payment restrictions, shipping constraints, age verification, FFL requirements, state-by-state complexity, and ITAR rules make this category least compatible with mainstream commerce platforms. Where Shopify exists, it is typically not primary. Most transactions live on other systems designed for these regulatory realities to include WooCommerce, Magento, and BigCommerce. I believe that this needs to change. 

How large is this universe?

The scale of defense-adjacent development is bounded rather than infinite. Below, order-of-magnitude estimates provide a clear sense of scope.

For defense primes and defense-tech challengers operating merch stores, the realistic global range is roughly 20 to 40 corporations. Most are U.S.-based, low-volume, and high-visibility. These are the cleanest Shopify use cases.

For subsystem suppliers that mix merch and industrial catalogs, the range is roughly 30 to 70 corporations. This includes 10 to 20 brand-first stores, 10 to 25 B2B component catalogs, and 5 to 15 hybrid industrial setups. This category is growing, especially among startups backed by the capital firms listed earlier.

For optics, night vision, lasers, and mounts, meaningful Shopify storefronts likely number between 5 and 10. The total company universe is far larger but Shopify’s penetration remains limited.

For firearms, ammunition, and serialized parts, primary Shopify storefronts probably fall between zero and 5. Regulatory friction and reputation keeps most commerce off the platform.

Add these layers together and the total defense-adjacent Shopify universe likely sits between 60 and 90 stores. This is a manageable landscape; it is not an ocean of thousands but this number should be in the 100s. 

Cloud as the invisible backbone of lethality

Commerce and capital do not operate in isolation; they run atop cloud infrastructure controlled by companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle. These firms are not weapons manufacturers but they are nonetheless deeply embedded in national defense.

Microsoft provides secure cloud environments that power logistics, AI modeling, and battlefield coordination. Google supplies geospatial tools, machine learning capabilities, and data analytics that enhance situational awareness. Oracle underpins databases used in government operations, procurement systems, and defense logistics.

These companies function as infrastructure suppliers for modern defense. They make it possible to process massive data streams, coordinate autonomous systems, and integrate global supply chains. The battlefield increasingly runs on software. That software runs on commercial cloud.

This reality collapses the old distinction between civilian tech and military capability. The same platforms that power consumer apps also support national defense; the line between commercial innovation and strategic advantage grows thinner every year.

What this means for Shopify and Its Partners

Shopify should not promote weapons procurement. That is neither its brand nor its purpose. At the same time, Shopify should equip defense and dual-use companies with modern commerce infrastructure suited to a new era of industrial and digital operations.

That includes world-class brand stores for defense-tech firms, sophisticated B2B catalogs for subsystem suppliers, secure and compliant checkout for regulated-adjacent categories, and scalable architecture for complex product ecosystems. Commerce is becoming a critical layer of the defense stack, not an afterthought.

For well-positioned agencies, this creates a clear strategic position. There are several equipped to own the intersection of defense, industry, and modern commerce. It can design premium brand experiences for companies adjacent to the likes of Anduril and Palantir. It can build operationally intelligent B2B systems for component suppliers. It can help bridge legacy industrial culture with Shopify-native best practices.

The future of American industrial power is being constructed across venture funds, cloud platforms, and digital storefronts. Lethality is no longer built only in factories; it is assembled through capital allocation, software infrastructure, and commerce architecture.

Understanding that stack is essential for anyone operating at the frontier of defense and technology: capital funds innovation, cloud enables intelligence, commerce distributes identity and capability. And together these define the new defense economy.

By Web Smith | Linkedin | More: NATSEC @ 2PM

Agentic: Shopify and Google’s UCP Will Democratize Commerce

But only for the brands and retailers that understand the new rules of the agentic commerce era.

I spent the better part of fourteen hours reading every page of Shopify’s Universal Commerce Protocol announcement. Not skimming it; not headline parsing it. I read the product notes, the architectural explanations, the developer implications, the platform logic, and then I sat down with the most technical person in my orbit and had them walk me through what Shopify is actually building. Not what they are saying they are building, but what the underlying principles of the system are: what the protocols mean, how the state machines behave, where the trust boundaries live, where human agency ends and machine agency begins. Most importantly what this infrastructure allows now and what it will allow five years from now.

When you do that exercise honestly, something becomes very clear. Shopify is not launching features. Rather, Shopify is laying the foundation for the next economic operating system and no one else has the horsepower to compete with them.

In the old economy, scale dominated. Whoever could buy the most traffic, flood the most channels, and sustain the largest ad budgets won. The new system does not care about your ad spend. It cares about your structure.

For the last twenty-five years, digital commerce has been built on persuasion. We optimized pages, funnels, copy, creative, attribution models, retargeting loops, and emotional triggers. We argued about brand and performance as if they were separate disciplines. We treated the internet like a mall. Shopify’s architecture makes it impossible to keep pretending that model survives the next decade.

We are entering a deterministic economy.

In a deterministic economy, outcomes are decided before the moment of choice. By the time a consumer sees a product, an increasingly large portion of the decision has already been locked in by structure, constraints, permissions, guarantees, and system design. This is the part of agentic commerce most people miss. They are still thinking about agents as new interfaces for old persuasion. They do not yet understand that the persuasion layer is becoming irrelevant.

When I first wrote about Agentic Commerce and AEO, I framed agents as the new homepage, the new SEO layer, the new point of sale. That framing remains directionally correct. But it understates the depth of the shift. The deeper change is not in discovery, it is in determinism. It is in who is allowed to win and why.

An agent does not browse, nor does an agent does not get tired. An agent does not feel brand affinity; an agent executes inside a defined constraint environment. That environment is shaped by what the user has permitted and what the business has declared. The business that fits the constraint environment best becomes the default winner.

This is what Shopify’s framework operationalizes.

When Shopify demonstrates that Google Gemini consistently prefers Monos luggage over its competitors and that ChatGPT produces similar recommendations, this is not a coincidence and it is not marketing. It is a signal. It suggests that Monos satisfies the underlying framework of constraints better than competing brands.

At Monos, we’re excited about agentic shopping because it enables us to meet customers where they already are. It’s a new way for our story and product details to show up at the exact moment someone is asking real questions with real intent, in a format that feels helpful, not intrusive. For a brand built on thoughtful design, it’s a natural next channel for discovery and trust. [Shopify]

Victor Tam, CEO and Co-Founder of Monos

Their data is cleaner, their policies are clearer, and their guarantees are stronger. In additiona, their fulfillment is presumably more reliable. Their trust signals are easier for machines to verify; their product attributes are more consistent and their systems are easier to complete transactions with.

This is not about who has the prettiest site; his is about who has built the most compatible business.

This is where the democratization of commerce quietly emerges. In the old economy, scale dominated. Whoever could buy the most traffic, flood the most channels, and sustain the largest ad budgets won. The new system does not care about your ad spend. It cares about your structure.

A small brand that publishes cleaner data, offers stronger guarantees, delivers faster fulfillment, simplifies returns, and maintains more reliable inventory becomes more attractive to an agent than a massive brand with messy systems and brittle operations. The competitive playing field shifts from capital dominance to operational excellence.

This is profoundly democratizing.

A founder with discipline, clarity, and strong systems can now compete with companies a hundred times their size, not because the agent is fair, but because the agent is ruthless. It selects the path with the highest probability of successful completion for the user. In the deterministic economy, small brands do not need to shout louder. They need to be built better.

This is why the entire idea of marketing as persuasion begins to erode. You do not convince the agent; you construct a business that the agent is allowed to choose.

At MTN Haus, we have been building in this direction for months, ironically. Yes, often without even naming it. We focused on membership systems that act like operating systems. We obsessed over data consistency, policy clarity, fulfillment logic, identity frameworks, subscription mechanics, and trust surfaces. We pushed clients to invest in boring things that did not feel like growth. Returns infrastructure, fulfillment reliability, inventory synchronization, policy transparency, and product data normalization. This is machine legibility.

Most agencies avoided that work because it is not sexy. It does not show up in creative decks; however, it is precisely what agents reward.

When we developed Snack Clock architecture, for a major CPG brand, the goal was not just to improve UX. It was to eliminate cognitive load and reduce friction in the moment of demand. That same logic now becomes machine-first.

Sometimes, the future is hard to explain to those living in the present.

Snack Clock was not just a UX feature; it is an early expression of deterministic commerce. Where most shopping systems force agents and consumers to infer urgency, Snack Clock required users to explicitly declare it. The moment someone turns the dial from “Now” to “Never Run Out Again,” they are no longer browsing; they are encoding a constraint. That constraint becomes the governing logic of the transaction.

Everything that follows is execution. Each path removes friction by design, routing the user or agent directly to the fastest, safest fulfillment channel available, whether that is local delivery, marketplace checkout, direct DTC, or subscription.

The result is a system that increases completion probability, which is the primary selection metric for agents. Snack Clock also makes the brand liquid by exposing multiple negotiation pathways at once. Agents prefer merchants that can adapt to more situations with fewer unknowns. Most importantly, Snack Clock transforms trust from a marketing claim into a computational guarantee by making outcomes predictable and verifiable. In an agentic economy, that structural advantage is decisive.

Agents will learn those temporal patterns and begin to recommend brands based on how well they satisfy time-based demand. The brand that understands when a problem emerges and can solve it with minimal friction becomes structurally superior.

This is not speculative. It is already happening. The deterministic economy operates on four hidden levers.

  • Constraint engineering
  • Friction elimination
  • Negotiation bandwidth
  • Trust as computation

The first is constraint engineering. MTN Haus’ Snack Clock architecture was an early example of this. Every business publishes rules: where they ship, how fast, what they guarantee, what happens when something goes wrong, and how disputes are resolved. Then, on to how identity is verified, how payments are handled, and how loyalty is honored. These rules define the feasible solution space the agent can operate within. Expand that space responsibly and the agent will choose you more often. Shrink it or complicate it and the agent will avoid you.

The second is friction elimination. Every additional step that requires human involvement reduces the probability of transaction completion. Brands that remove escalation points win. This is not about UX anymore; it is about computational efficiency.

The third is negotiation bandwidth. Brands that expose flexible pricing, dynamic bundling, loyalty conversions, and time-based logic give agents more degrees of freedom to optimize outcomes. Rigid businesses lose.

The fourth is trust as computation. Trust becomes verifiable, guarantees become cryptographic, and identity becomes machine-readable. Reputation becomes structural.

This is where my early AEO thesis was both right and incomplete. I was correct that structured data, schema alignment, policy transparency, and factual consistency would become the foundation of visibility. Where the thesis fell short was in recognizing that AEO is not just about being recommended. Rather, it is about becoming the easiest possible outcome for a system to choose.

Recommendation is a symptom. Determinism is the disease.

Outside media still matters, but not for the reasons most marketers think. Media does not persuade the agent; media reshapes the human’s constraint environment. It modifies trust, risk tolerance, ethical alignment, and long-term preference. Those updated constraints are then enforced by the agent. When the agent shops later, it is operating inside a newly defined rule set. Media moves the boundaries of what is allowed; it does not pull the trigger itself.

This is why public perception, cultural trust, and earned media remain critical in an agentic economy. They expand the computational reach of your brand.

Shopify’s framework confirms that commerce is no longer about storytelling at the point of sale; it is about system design at the point of possibility.

The brands that win the next decade will not be the most charismatic, they will be the most compatible. They will be the most verifiable, most reliable, the easiest to complete, the most negotiable, and the most machine-readable.

The deterministic economy is here. And the work required to survive it has already begun.

Research and Writing By Web Smith

NATSEC Roundtable No. 8: Dragon-Guarded Mountain of Treasure

Build site: Anduril’s Arsenal-1 (Ohio)

Why Financial Infrastructure Is Now National Infrastructure

Over the past several years, my writing under the NATSEC banner at 2PM has explored how American commerce has quietly become inseparable from national security. From artificial general intelligence and biometric identity systems to re-identifiable consumer data, weaponized supply chains, and the industrial resurgence triggered by companies like Anduril, the through line has remained consistent. The battlefield is no longer confined to geography. Rather, it has expanded into markets, logistics networks, data ecosystems, and capital structures. The modern conflict is being waged inside the machinery of the economy itself. Finance is another layer of this machinery, one best explained by quantum mechanics:

A ‘superposition’ is a particle that can exist in multiple states or locations at the same time until it is measured. Mathematically, a particle’s wavefunction spans many positions at once. Frontier companies in defense, energy, AI, aerospace, and industrial tech exist today in a similar state of economic superposition. They are simultaneously:

  • Engineering organizations
  • National security assets
  • Commercial entities
  • Policy instruments
  • Sovereignty projects

But they cannot fully realize all of those states at once because capital is the measurement device. The deeper I have gone into this convergence, the more one conclusion has crystallized. America does not have a technology problem. It does not have a talent problem. It does not even have a will problem. What it has is a capital architecture problem. The financial systems that are supposed to fund, scale, and stabilize the next generation of American industry are misaligned with the reality of the world they now serve. Until that changes, everything else remains downstream.

If those primitives are financed on venture timelines, the United States inherits venture risk at the level of national infrastructure.

We are entering a period where the United States is being asked to rebuild industrial capacity and defense capability at scale under conditions of permanent geopolitical instability; this is not a cyclical adjustment. It is a structural transition. The systems that govern capital allocation were built for a world of short wars, long peace, and slow moving technological change. That world no longer exists; what replaces it is an environment where risk never resets to zero, where supply chains are weaponized, where data flows are strategic terrain, and where industrial production itself becomes a form of deterrence.

In that environment, the greatest constraint on American power is no longer innovation or engineering. It is finance.

The weakness of the current defense and industrial financing model is subtle but devastating. Defense technologies and industrial platforms require long timelines, heavy capital investment, regulatory endurance, political fluency, and sustained workforce development. Yet the dominant sources of private capital remain optimized for fast iteration, short duration risk, rapid exits, and financial optionality. Venture capital expects hypergrowth and liquidity events; not every venture firm thinks like In-Q-Tel, for instance. Public markets impose quarterly discipline and private equity extracts cash flow and compresses operating horizons while government procurement remains bureaucratic and slow. Each of these systems evolved in rational isolation. Together, they form an ecosystem that is structurally incompatible with the demands of modern national security.

This mismatch produces cascading consequences. Companies are forced into artificial business models that optimize for investor optics rather than strategic durability. Engineers and operators are pulled toward projects that satisfy capital timelines rather than national needs. Startups burn precious years waiting on government contracts while government waits for startups to de risk themselves. The entire system stalls inside its own incentives.

In my recent essay on existential risk and growth at 2PM, I argued that once systemic danger exists, time itself becomes the most dangerous variable in the system. Slowing down does not stabilize risk. It compounds it, as I explain below.

Risk is not eliminated by waiting. It is outrun. The brands that survive disruption do the opposite. They accelerate through it. They ship faster or they learn faster. They adapt faster and they reach stable ground first. Specific industries have internalized this logic completely. Defense technology never pauses. When the threat increases, acceleration becomes the strategy. Data infrastructure behaves the same way: rising complexity demands faster buildout, not slower. Entertainment follows the same pattern. Fragmented attention requires aggressive output, not restraint.

The longer a society remains exposed to structural vulnerabilities, the greater the cumulative probability of failure becomes. That logic applies directly to American industrial and defense finance. The world is not becoming safer; the hazards are already embedded. The correct response is not to pause or retreat. It is to build faster, scale faster, and reach the next equilibrium before exposure compounds.

The problem is that our financial institutions punish exactly that behavior.

Venture capital in particular is the wrong tool for a significant portion of frontier technology. Venture was built to fund software, networks, and platforms that scale with minimal capital intensity and deliver liquidity within a decade. It is extraordinarily effective at that task. It is deeply unsuited for sovereign-scale infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, defense systems, energy grids, space platforms, and industrial AI. These domains demand patience, stability, and commitment. Venture demands velocity, optionality, and exit.

When those incentives collide, the nation pays the price. Dual-use companies contort themselves into enterprise abstractions. Hardware firms chase SaaS narratives. Defense startups chase recurring revenue optics while delaying the hard work of physical scale. The financial structure, not the mission, becomes the primary constraint.

This is not an abstract concern. In the NATSEC essays at 2PM, I have shown how surveillance technologies, identity systems, consumer data markets, and global supply chains have already become national security primitives. If those primitives are financed on venture timelines, the United States inherits venture risk at the level of national infrastructure. That is not merely inefficient. It is strategically dangerous.

The appropriate financial architecture empowers a quantum-like economic superposition that enables industry, intelligence, and people across key geographic regions in the United States.

A handful of companies have already broken this model. Palantir, SpaceX, and Anduril did not succeed simply because of superior technology. They succeeded because they rejected the existing financial architecture and forced capital to adapt to the mission rather than the reverse.

Financial infrastructure is no longer a neutral service layer of the economy.

Palantir embedded itself inside the government long before it ever approached public markets. SpaceX refused short-term economics and compelled investors to accept decade-scale risk. Anduril rewrote the defense contracting playbook entirely, building manufacturing with the speed of software and anchoring production inland as a sovereignty play, a transformation I explored in depth in the Anduril essay at 2PM.

What these companies created was not simply a new category of firm. They created a new category of capital relationship. Not venture, not government, and not defense prime. Something hybrid, long-term, and sovereign-aligned. A financial structure capable of sustaining national objectives at industrial scale.

Once you see this pattern, it becomes impossible to ignore its implications. Financial infrastructure is no longer a neutral service layer of the economy. It is now a national infrastructure. The architecture of capital determines which technologies survive, which regions grow, which industries remain resilient, and which supply chains harden under pressure. It determines how quickly a nation can adapt under stress and how deeply it can absorb shocks without cascading failure.

In modern conflict, wars are often decided before the first weapon fires. They are decided in capital markets, data markets, manufacturing pipelines, energy financing, and talent flows. Whoever designs the financial infrastructure controls the true battlefield.

This is where a new class of institutions begins to emerge. Entities that do not merely lend, invest, or underwrite, but that engineer capital as strategic infrastructure. Institutions that understand that sovereign intent and financial architecture must be fused if American power is to remain durable.

The next phase of American industrial resurgence will not be led solely by engineers, policymakers, or military leaders. Financial architects will lead it.

The work of commercial operators becomes central in this transition: engineers build systems, policymakers define objectives, but the world breaks or holds in the space between them. It breaks in supply chains, hiring pipelines, revenue models, capital stacks, and institutional trust. Commercial operators live inside those fault lines. They understand how incentives distort behavior, how systems fail under stress, and how narratives shape capital flows. They operate at the intersection where mission meets market and where theory becomes execution.

Commerce, as I have argued repeatedly in the NATSEC series, is no longer neutral. It is strategic terrain.

America’s next century of power will be built inside this convergence of finance, industry, and national security. The country does not lack ambition. It lacks the financial systems capable of carrying that ambition to scale without collapse. Fix the capital architecture and the rest accelerates. As Trammel and Aschenbrenner recently quantified in Existential Risk and Growth, “risk is not eliminated by waiting. It is outrun.”

This work will be addressed, at least partly, by a dragon-guarded mountain of treasure and the people or companies enabled by it.

Written by Web Smith | LinkedIn Profile