People confuse decentralization as a governance goal, and decentralized computing as an implementation choice.
You can use decentralized protocols to build highly centralized power structures, and inversely you can use centralized tools to build orgs where power is distributed
You can use decentralized protocols to build highly centralized power structures, and inversely you can use centralized tools to build orgs where power is distributed
Another common misconception is that open source projects are examples of successful distributed governance. Most successful OSS projects are organized like companies, with decision-making concentrated in a few people
One more misconception: that decentralized governance is inherently better. It's a complicated problem (see cybernetics) and there are no easy answers for large orgs. For small orgs, central power works best in practice (i.e. modern management best practices work well)
Pushing for decentralization in governance is an ideological stance; it should be considered as such, and not blindly accepted until a first-principles analysis of whether it would be a good idea in the situation at hand
(It sounds insane to want to replace the Fed, which is accountable and has a clear stabilizing role in the economy, with highly-centralized unaccountable power structures built on top of excruciatingly inefficient distributed-consensus computing infrastructure.)
