It’s interesting to me, that you define political decentralization as who controls the devices rather than who controls the code and protocols. And then you talk about decision-making about the code and protocols in the category of collusion. Evolving your code and protocols IS NECESSARY and DESIRABLE, not a undesirable collusion.

I think this definition needs refining. It’s like thinking that political control of dollars is just about who controls the wallets in people’s pockets that dollars are in. There is certainly a kind of power in people voting with their dollars, but that control is not of the currency, it’s of the economy. The political control of the currency lies with the people controlling the code and protocols — deciding who gets to issue money, how, how it is accounted for, prime interest rates, etc.

This is a theme I keep pointing to around cryptocurrencies missing the social/political/decision-making protocols such that their governance is formally and intentionally decentralized.

Would you consider including the decision making about code and protocols in your category of political decentralization?