First, thinking of decentralization/centralization as having a boundary between them can be useful, but is wrong. They are a continuum upon which things oscilla

First, thinking of decentralization/centralization as having a boundary between them can be useful, but is wrong. They are a continuum upon which things oscillate. Decentralization fundamentally trades inefficiency for long-term robustness. Centralization trades long term robustness for short term efficiencies. Under our implementation of capitalism, most people don't value robustness on a timescale longer than 20 years unless there was recently a crisis to remind them of it. So every aspect of human infrastructure oscillates on the centralized-decentralized axis over time. Thinking of "decentralized" as something that will stay that way is wrong, over time people will ever centralize the system in pursuit of short term returns until the perceived "decentralized" system might as well be centralized in practice (see internet infrastructure), once a crisis happens due to over-centralization we build a new system (or re-brand an old system) that is more decentralized in response. That system eventually decays into centralization the same way. I value changing society to think in the long term, so I think it is a lot more valuable to change the cycle versus attempt to participate in just one swing of it.