You seem to be really jumping on the Devil's Advocate role. I note this requires taking contradictory positions, which must be entertaining. Trust/trustless, Centralized/decentralized, you take both sides and come to conclusions insuperable IRL by ignoring matters of fact that affect them. Why didn't @ned take over Steem?

This is why Hive exists today, and it's not because Hive is decentralized economically. It's because Hive is centralized in an oligarchy. @ned's stake would not have had value were the appearance of decentralization not projected, as we see on Steem today, where only massive infusions of fiat maintain token price.

The same situation exists with BTC, and AXA and the mining pools would, as you point out, lose by winning were they to overtly centralize their control. Because of exchanges the decentralization of cryptos is illusory. Mining pools reveal their deception is essential to their profitability by continuing to not exercise their power to effect governance.

The pretense of democracy has worked for centuries, but presently seems to have hit a wall, and more open direct governance of society is being implemented globally. This is not the result of decentralized/distributed political power, but the opposite. It is facile and even puerile to assume that power restrained doesn't exist.

The opposite seems to be demonstrated historically. Steem is a good example of that today.

Thanks!