Some pretty thought provoking points. Most of the argument seems to hinge on the idea that power laws are proof of centralization and that we're just seeing them manifest in different forms. Most of the examples of dominant personalities all came about in a pretty democratic way. I think the real test will be if they become entrenched. If they can fall out of favor just as quick as they came into favor and be replaced by someone currently fairly anonymous, maybe it is not so centralized?
Also if we do see strong evidence of centralization in certain areas, does that mean this trend will continue in the future? I wonder if we are entering into a new phase (#3):
1. 1970-2000 - decentralized, and fringe.
2. 2001-2020 - centralized, and mainstream. eBay/Airbnb as examples platforms that normalized online transactions and acted as a single trusted intermediary
3. 2021+ - decentralized, and mainstream. A substantial majority now accept the internet. Where the intermediaries were once providing a service, they may be perceived as an obstacle.
I think this is too small of a time window. On the thousand-year horizon, centralization has been consistently increasing.
We may fluctuate a bit to more decentralized in the next decade. If bitcoin "wins", then on one hand it's a story of decentralization - no one controls it! - but on the other it compresses a bunch of currencies and wealth assets into one.
And hopefully the miners don't eventually become centralized...
Also if we do see strong evidence of centralization in certain areas, does that mean this trend will continue in the future? I wonder if we are entering into a new phase (#3):
1. 1970-2000 - decentralized, and fringe.
2. 2001-2020 - centralized, and mainstream. eBay/Airbnb as examples platforms that normalized online transactions and acted as a single trusted intermediary
3. 2021+ - decentralized, and mainstream. A substantial majority now accept the internet. Where the intermediaries were once providing a service, they may be perceived as an obstacle.