We are knee-deep in the age of techno-optimistic hype cycles and AI doomerism - both fueled by the same underlying mechanism: strategic information asymmetry. Tech companies far too regularly employ calculated opacity as a competitive advantage. They overpromise capabilities, understate limitations, and withhold crucial information about how their systems actually work. Meanwhile, critics respond with equally dramatic catastrophizing, often based on their own speculative models rather than concrete evidence.

The market rewards this behavior on both sides. Companies that master the art of the perfectly-timed press release—just vague enough to avoid scrutiny but exciting enough to boost stock prices—consistently outperform more cautious competitors. Critics who predict the most sensational disasters attract the most attention, regardless of probability. And caught in the middle are customers, employees, investors, and society at large, all making decisions based on incomplete or actively misleading information.

But what if there's an untapped competitive advantage hiding in plain sight? What if radical transparency—sharing not just successes but limitations, not just roadmaps but uncertainties—could actually outperform strategic opacity in the long run?

I'm proposing a counterintuitive thesis: there exists a significant "honesty premium" in tech that remains largely unclaimed. Companies willing to embrace radical transparency might initially suffer short-term volatility but ultimately capture disproportionate value through enhanced trust, better decision-making, and reduced regulatory friction.

TL:DR - I'm proposing telling the truth as a competitive advantage.

The Status Quo: Tactical Opacity as Strategy

Tech communication follows predictable patterns. New technologies emerge surrounded by exaggerated promises.

Remember how blockchain was supposed to solve everything from financial inequality to supply chain management to digital identity? How about the countless "AI-powered" products that were actually running on glorified if-then statements with a dash of regression analysis? The metaverse that was going to replace physical reality?

This isn't a bug of the system—it's a core feature. Companies deploy tactical opacity because it works. Consider Theranos, which operated for years raising billions before its house of cards collapsed. Or the numerous autonomous vehicle companies that have repeatedly promised self-driving taxis "next year" for the past decade. Or AI companies releasing capabilities with carefully choreographed demos that mask significant limitations.

The incentives driving this behavior are straightforward:

1. Information asymmetry creates negotiating leverage

2. Ambiguity allows projection of capabilities beyond reality

3. Secrecy prevents immediate competitive responses

4. Hype drives investment before real validation

5. Controlling narrative timing maximizes press coverage

The dance works like this: make bold claims with carefully crafted language that implies more than it states. When pushed, release selective information that supports the preferred narrative. When problems emerge, rebrand them as "challenges" or "opportunities for iteration." When timelines slip, focus on how the vision has "expanded." When competitors make progress, suddenly pivot to emphasizing your unique differentiation.

This approach carries hidden costs that accumulate over time: declining trust, harder recruitment, employee cynicism, regulatory scrutiny, and eventually, market correction.

The Case for Radical Transparency

The tech industry has few genuine examples of radical transparency. Companies that claim transparency practice highly selective disclosure that serves their narrative interests while maintaining opacity around less flattering realities. Actual transparency remains more theoretical than practiced - which is precisely why it represents an unclaimed competitive advantage.

The benefits, as I see them:

Trust as Competitive Moat. When GitHub experienced a major service outage in 2018, they published an exhaustively detailed post-mortem explaining precisely what went wrong. Rather than damaging their reputation, this strengthened user trust. Users didn't expect infallibility—they wanted confirmation that GitHub understood its own systems well enough to diagnose and prevent similar failures.

Superior Customer Selection. Transparency attracts customers who value reality over fantasy. These customers typically have longer retention, provide more useful feedback, and become genuine advocates rather than fair-weather fans. Buffer's decision to publish all employee salaries publicly attracted precisely the types of customers and employees aligned with their values.

Regulatory Protection. Companies facing regulatory scrutiny often adopt defensive postures, releasing information only when compelled. Yet those who proactively disclose potential issues frequently receive more favorable treatment. The FTC and similar bodies explicitly consider "cooperation and good faith" when determining penalties.

Reduced Internal Friction. Information hoarding creates massive inefficiencies within organizations. When teams operate with different understandings of product limitations or development timelines, they make incompatible decisions. Radical transparency reduces these coordination costs dramatically.

Better Capital Allocation. Markets eventually discover the truth. Companies that maintain artificial information asymmetries may temporarily enjoy inflated valuations, but the correction is usually painful. Consistent transparency allows for more accurate pricing of risk and more sustainable capital allocation.

Can we quantify this "honesty premium"? Direct measurement remains challenging, but proxy indicators suggest its magnitude. Companies with higher transparency ratings consistently demonstrate lower capital costs, reduced stock volatility during market downturns, and better long-term performance than peers.

The Friction Points: Why Transparency Remains Rare

If transparency offers such benefits, why don't more companies embrace it?

Short-term Market Punishment. Markets frequently punish honesty in the short term. When Apple acknowledges a product delay or Netflix reports slower subscriber growth, their stocks immediately drop—even when the disclosure represents responsible management.

Competitive Exposure. Transparency can reveal strategic information to competitors. When Notion publicly documents its product roadmap, competitors gain insight into its priorities and can potentially respond faster.

Legal Liability. Transparency creates documented evidence that can be weaponized in litigation. Corporate counsel routinely advises against disclosures that might later become exhibits in lawsuits.

Stakeholder Anxiety. Not all stakeholders want full transparency. Investors may prefer maintained ambiguity if it supports higher valuations. Employees may resist salary transparency if it reveals inequities.

Narrative Control Loss. Perhaps most significantly, transparency sacrifices narrative control. The ability to selectively disclose information provides enormous power to shape how a company is perceived.

These friction points explain why transparency remains more theoretical than practiced.

The systems optimized for tactical opacity have deep roots in corporate culture, investor expectations, and regulatory frameworks.

That's not a reason to reject transparency outright. It's an opportunity to zig against the zag.

The Transparency Spectrum: What Works, What Doesn't

Not all transparency initiatives deliver equal value. Some create significant benefit with minimal risk, while others generate more heat than light.

Effective transparency initiatives typically share several characteristics:

Comprehensive but Contextualized. Raw data dumps without context often create more confusion than clarity. Effective transparency contextualizes information to make it meaningful.

Consistent Across Cycles. Companies that only embrace transparency during positive cycles undermine their credibility. The real test comes during downturns.

Interactive Rather Than Declarative. The strongest transparency initiatives invite dialogue rather than merely broadcasting information.

Risk-Aware Without Being Risk-Averse. Transparency doesn't mean exposing every vulnerability without consideration. It means thoughtfully assessing which disclosures create net value.

Culturally Integrated. Bolt-on transparency programs rarely succeed. Companies that build transparency into their operational DNA show dramatically better results.

Based on these criteria, we can assess various transparency approaches:

Financial transparency tends to work well when it includes forward-looking considerations rather than just backward-looking reporting. Compensation transparency works when it's systematic rather than anecdotal. Product limitation transparency works when it focuses on capabilities, rather than just risks.

Incremental Radicalism

The sequencing matters enormously. Companies might begin with:

Internal Transparency. Before going public, practice radical transparency within the organization. This builds the muscles needed for external transparency while containing potential damage.

Retrospective Transparency. After product launches or major decisions, provide detailed explanations of the process. This educates stakeholders about decision frameworks without exposing future plans.

Bounded Transparency. Create transparent "zones" within the organization—specific products or processes where transparency is practiced comprehensively.

Crisis Transparency. Use inevitable crises as opportunities to demonstrate transparency values when stakeholders are most attentive.

Each step builds credibility for the next, gradually shifting stakeholder expectations from opacity to transparency as the default.

This approach acknowledges reality: full transparency is neither possible nor desirable for most tech companies. The goal isn't absolute disclosure but rather thoughtful transparency that creates net value.

The Regulatory Wildcard

We can't talk tech transparency without talking regulatory environments. Policymakers worldwide are developing increasingly comprehensive frameworks requiring mandatory disclosures around algorithms, data usage, content moderation, and other previously opaque practices.

Smart orgs will get ahead of these requirements, shaping their transparency approaches proactively rather than reactively. Those who wait for regulatory mandates will find themselves implementing suboptimal disclosure models designed by those with limited understanding of their businesses.

The EU's Digital Services Act, the proposed US Algorithmic Accountability Act, and similar regulations worldwide signal a clear direction: increased mandatory transparency is coming. The companies that thrive will be those that turn this requirement into a competitive advantage rather than treating it as a compliance burden.

The Unclaimed Premium

The "honesty premium" in tech is one of the largest unclaimed competitive advantages in modern business. Companies that systematically embrace transparency—about capabilities, limitations, timelines, and risks—will face short-term friction but potentially capture enormous long-term value.

This isn't idealism, and it's not an ethical argument, though those may be welcome side effects. The fact is that information asymmetry strategies that worked in previous technology cycles are becoming increasingly unsustainable. The gap between claimed and actual capabilities becomes more consequential.

The companies that close this gap proactively, before market forces or regulations compel them to, will define the next generation of tech leaders. They'll build stronger trust relationships with users, more productive partnerships with regulators, and more aligned cultures with employees.

Will tech leaders have the courage to pursue this approach when short-term incentives push so strongly in the opposite direction? How many more Theranos-style implosions will we witness before the industry recognizes that tactical opacity is not just ethically questionable but strategically shortsighted?

The honesty premium awaits those willing to claim it. The only question is who will get there first.

Ready to stop outsourcing your voice?

We don’t run your comms—we build your capability. Signalvs trains founders and teams to own their message, lead the narrative, and communicate with unshakable clarity. If that sounds like what you’re missing, we should talk.

Get in touch →