An important extra dimension is whether, within a certain system, the natural tendency towards centralization-for-convenience also generates centralization lock

An important extra dimension is whether, within a certain system, the natural tendency towards centralization-for-convenience also generates centralization lock-in. If there's a dependence on canonical global registries or fixed network locations in the manner of addressing people/content, that becomes the case. Centralization occurs via a one-way ratchet – sought for ease but then practically irreversible due to high switching costs. "Federated" systems usually still have this centralization problem. Systems based on cryptographically-derived names (for content or identities) offer a potential escape route. While you might choose certain centralized/dominant providers for a quick-and-easy start, retaining one's own stable crypto identity ensures absolute portability and location/provider indifference. Such an architecturally-enforced right-of-exit can also make higher levels of centralization tolerable, before centralized power becomes a problem. The potential for choosing other arrangements, rapidly and with minimum disruption, deters abusive acts by larger proprietors.