By Sachin V. Gopalan
The digital economy has changed how we buy, sell, and interact.
But it has also changed something less visible, who controls the market.
Today, much of digital commerce operates through platforms. These platforms provide access to customers, payments, logistics, and visibility. They have played an important role in accelerating digital adoption.
But they also define the rules.
They determine how products are displayed, how prices are set, how promotions are run, and how data is used. For businesses operating within these platforms, success depends not only on the quality of their products, but on their ability to navigate these rules.
In many ways, the platform becomes the market.
This creates a fundamental shift in power.
Traditionally, markets were open spaces where buyers and sellers interacted directly. In the digital world, platforms act as intermediaries: facilitating transactions, but also shaping them.
This has benefits. It brings efficiency, scale, and convenience.
But it also raises important questions.
Who owns the customer relationship?
Who owns the data?
Who captures the value created?
For many MSMEs, the answer is not straightforward.
They gain access to customers, but they do not fully own those relationships. They generate data, but they do not control how it is used. They create value, but a significant portion is captured elsewhere.
This is not a criticism of platforms. It is a characteristic of how they are designed.
The question is whether this design is the only possible model.
An alternative is emerging in different parts of the world: open networks.
Unlike platforms, open networks do not centralize control. They create a shared infrastructure where multiple participants: buyer apps, seller apps, logistics providers, payment systems, can interact through common protocols.
In such a system, businesses are not locked into a single platform. They can be discovered across multiple channels. They retain greater control over their data and relationships. Competition shifts from being platform-centric to service-centric.
The market becomes more open, more dynamic, and potentially more inclusive.
For a country like Indonesia, this distinction matters.
With millions of MSMEs and a highly diverse economic landscape, a model that prioritizes openness and interoperability could unlock far greater participation.
It could reduce dependency on any single platform. It could lower costs. It could create a more level playing field.
Most importantly, it could shift the focus from control to enablement.
The debate, therefore, is not about replacing platforms.
It is about complementing them with a layer that ensures the market itself remains open.
Because in the long run, the health of a digital economy depends not just on how efficiently it operates, but on how fairly it distributes opportunity.
And that brings us back to a simple but important question:
In the digital economy of the future, who should own the market?
The platforms—or the participants?