Most people who are into blockchain stuff would not use the word "decentralised" to describe a system where a municipal government has unilateral control. The

Most people who are into blockchain stuff would not use the word "decentralised" to describe a system where a municipal government has unilateral control. The thing that they solve well is incentivizing people to operate a network, and doing so with security properties that are different from centralized networks. In the case of "decentralised Uber", that would look like an Uber network that continued working even if some subset of participants became evil or disappeared. With sometime like Bitcoin for example, you could shift the security property from "network behaves correctly as long as the local government is honest and online" to "network behaves correctly as long as >50% of hash power is honest and >X% of hashpower is online" It's not really about censorship and only a tiny bit about government resistance. It's more about not trusting anyone. My personal take is that some trust is good for an uber-like product, so current-gen blockchain solution would be worse than actual Uber.