Maby you are right. I think there is some sweetspot. To make something efficient one creates hubs. So kind of bottleneks, which do one thing very efficient. As we know it from airports for letting airplanes start and land. The cost of every single flight goes up, when there is more hubs to maintain. On the other side the airtraffic gets more stable, when there are more hubs. So systems tend towards centralization when everything works well and tend to decentralization, when bottlenecks fail. And to find the perfect optimum is difficult. To realize, when one is at the optimum is at least as hard. And to understand that this optimum shifts for changing circumstances is an other point that is hard to understand. So I really think on can maby have a good level of decentralization in my eyes, while you are unhappy. Then we shift the level in whichever direction and our feelings towards it changes. I assume only the freedom for everyone to just build things can bring a system, where everyone can be satisfied. But we also have to accept, that we will never know, when we are at the pareto optimum of the hubs-vs-decentralization problem.

That is quite true, but we can still build centralisation without building hierarchy. Bitcoin is an obvious example. Protocols, not platforms, and laws, not men. This also requires tradeoffs, of course - investment in consensus-building upfront, and difficult to modify quickly except in the case of a clear and present danger.