I'm surprising myself a bit, but I think I agree. I think these types of problems are inherent in companies of a certain size. When you reach a point where there is so much structure that you can only progress via metrics those metrics will inherently start to only serve themselves instead of the original goal they were attempting to be a proxy for.
When you think about it, the "winner takes all" martingale is already forbidden in most states of law.
Two companies are not allowed to merge if their total market share would past 30%, because that would allow a monopoly and thus total control over the price of goods. A winner cannot just buyout his previous opponents indefinitely.
Similarly, a company cannot (at least where I live) sell at a loss. That would allow a company with more capital to lower prices at an impossible level until competition dies out, and then increase prices back when concurrents are wiped out.
These regulations are different of course, but the overall idea is similar: a company should not be able to press its advantage exponentially. And I think the marketcap is but a forgotten rule in these regulations.
Once a company reaches a monstrous level of market cap, it is too diversified to fail, and can press its legal / lobbying leverage on some of its subbusinesses at an unfair level against competitors. If you're a search engine company, competition against Google is not just competing against an other player in the search space. You're competing against the legal and lobbying power of 10 companies.
And that's not even mentioning state supremacy concerns. I vote for my government. They may not be always want I want them to, but hey, that democracy. I don't vote for mega corps governance. I don't want them to have bargaining power over my state or country.
