I would go as far as saying that the problem with blockchain is not even blockchain, but in the fokloric narratives around decentralization, which is treated as

I would go as far as saying that the problem with blockchain is not even blockchain, but in the fokloric narratives around decentralization, which is treated as if it's a binary condition (X is/is not decentralized), rather than as a blind, innate and monotonic behavioral tendency of a network. And that's being generous, because very likely decentralization - in spite of any attempt to implement it - will turn out to have been a mirage all along, and blockchainism thus amounts to our century's version of ever-more-convoluted epicycle "tech" straining to reify a philosophical dead end. It's absurd to claim that something is decentralized when there is always team at the core of this so-called decentralized network whose self-appointed job is to maintain its state of decentralization. I would argue that there is no such thing as any intentionally decentralized anything, and all claims as such should be treated with extreme skepticism. "trust us, it's trustless." The only decentralized phenomena are ones that come to us from the universe itself. And even those can ultimately be traced to an origin so the decentralization is only a local phenomena anyway.