If the problem is that users using an app that's supposed to be, by it's governance structure, decentralized but in practice it's still centralised and this is

If the problem is that users using an app that's supposed to be, by it's governance structure, decentralized but in practice it's still centralised and this is the primary reason why changes aren't implemented/pushed through. I think it's more reasonable to think about solutions to the governance problem itself. Imo, thinking a plutocratic structure would ever bring forth power decentralisation is foolish to begin with. Voting with your wallet makes sense if everyone has the same amount, it doesn't make sense if over time resources get concentrated in the hands of the few which in turn use this power to concentrate power even more. In reality, there's a lot of much simpler methods of governance that could be implemented for these projects. Starting with sortition, the formation of assemblies, working cohorts, etc (all through sortition). This would ensure a much more equitable access that wouldn't really take away from effectiveness (at least the sortition experiments done at town, city and country level haven't shown less quality in the public proposals that come out them). But honestly, I don't think people in the crypto space truly want effective decentralized structures. I think the do "democratic washing" if you can put it in some way. There's a lot of incompatible ideas in the space. So, a project like this looks to me to be trying to solve a problem they themselves have created out of stubbornness. If you want dynamic governance in the space then sortition is probably a much better way to go around things rather than "darwinian evolution". Change should be commanded by users of the system and implemented by developers. Not spear headed by developers and adopted by the users. This second one leads to a lot of wasted effort.