imo what folks usually want out of decentralization isn't decentralization itself (which has its own cost/benefits), but _shared centralization_ where a single entity is credibly owned by those it affects.
So maybe uhhh... look into co-ops and such instead of cr/ypto?
see also: credit unions
We have to come to terms with the fact that a lot of things are _better off_ centralized, too! Factories can be way more efficient than uhhh... lots of small independent shops. And that's ok! And it's ok to mix and match!
But what's going on is also not really decentralization, either: it's a recentralization from one concentration of money and power (and "location") to another, often with tons of overlap in participants (the currently rich are often the ones buying a crapton into cr/yp/to).
@zkat you might find this an interesting read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-the-homebrew-industrial-revolution
When trying to solve real problems for real people the assumption of zero trust is almost the opposite of what is needed...
Loose coupling and all sorts of checks and balances are required (and standard security) but that should be more than enough to get going
@zkat in this house crypto means cryptography ;)
But yes you're right, there's really two kinds of decentralization: "convergent decentralization" and "decentralized cooperating agents". I've been meaning to write up on this for a bit...
They're not at odds necessarily, but all the focus is on the former, but the problems society is actually needing to be solved are all in the latter camp...
On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.