Tesla

Tesla went all-in on battery electric vehicles in 2008 when every other automaker was hedging. That single strategic bet - choosing speed over optionality - made Tesla the EV market leader but created existential dependency on battery technology dominance. While Toyota bet-hedges across hybrids, hydrogen, and EVs, Tesla faces a binary outcome: if batteries win, Tesla wins big; if another technology disrupts batteries, Tesla has no fallback. This is Pacific Salmon strategy at civilizational scale.

The Model 3 ramp in 2017-2018 nearly killed the company and proved the strategy's power. Tesla allocated 85% to growth, 10% to survival, 5% to profitability - burning $1 billion per quarter with only two quarters of runway remaining. Musk slept on the factory floor during 'production hell.' They hit 5,000 vehicles per week in the final week of Q2 2018, achieved first profitable quarter Q3 2018, and the stock rose from $300 to $1,200 by 2021. But this wasn't luck - it was biological strategy. Tesla built the Supercharger network before selling many vehicles, subsidizing infrastructure to trigger the positive feedback loop: more vehicles demand more charging stations which enable more vehicles.

Tesla's competitive moat comes from changing the game rather than playing the existing one. Direct sales bypass dealer networks that competitors depend on; multiple battery suppliers (Panasonic, CATL, LG Energy) avoid Boeing's single-source risk; vertical integration captures margins that traditional automakers surrender to supply chains. The lesson isn't 'take crazy risks.' It's that in winner-take-all markets, bet-hedging guarantees mediocrity. Tesla chose to either dominate or die trying. Most companies die slowly from caution.