The only thing decentralised was the ledger and it's consistency. There never has been any sense to "political decentralisation" having anything to do with cryp

The only thing decentralised was the ledger and it's consistency. There never has been any sense to "political decentralisation" having anything to do with crypto. A social network isn't decentralised because it's people use a centralised or decentralised proof-of-correctness. An economic network isnt centralised or decentralised if its ledger of promises is stored centrally or otherwise. This is a fairly obvious fallacy to anyone who understands that centralisation of power is a social-graph structure, and economic centralisation is transaction-graph-structure and crypto "decentralisation" concerns only the storage-and-computation of a ledger. Ironically, the crypto "economy" is radically more centralised in social-graph and transaction-graph terms. So much so that it's incredibly fragile to a handful of individual failures. The idea that these have anything to do with each other is such an obvious nonesense that the only reason its repeated is just people do not understand at least one of these issues. Ie., very few are both in the camp of technically, politically and economically competent. Money is already close to the maximally decentralised a ledger storage can be. It's already close to maximally decentralised proof-of-correctness. Having a bank-note in your hand is extremely good proof it's yours, and extremely hard for others to steal. Decentralisation, in the only relevant sense to crypto, already exists in a close to perfect form (ie., money).