I agree that distributed governance is more functional than centralized, but the problem with shared platforms like Etherium is that it is very hard to predict

I agree that distributed governance is more functional than centralized, but the problem with shared platforms like Etherium is that it is very hard to predict what the unintended side effects of a system will be when scaled up. Ideally the platform is neutral but in practice nothing is truly neutral. So you don’t actually get to opt for no pre-planned structure, to approach neutral requires even more planning. In the case of Etherium, right now, the platform is, for example, making it very easy to accidentally write contracts with flaws such that value can be extracted by bad actors, and the process of finding and fixing those flaws is technically difficult. (Contrast this with US fiat contracts which cannot encode automated security flaws, because the only mechanism of execution/enforcement is voluntary human action and/or lawsuits). I don’t think that was intentionally designed into Eth? Did anyone say “we’d like to replace formal conflict resolution with hacker battles”?