Shameless plug: I wrote a blog post a while ago using your premise to argue why decentralized technologies wouldn't be useful to society: https://www.notion.so/Yet-Another-Rant-About-Blockchains-ece...
But even when there is a notion of competition you say that to avoid the traps left around by an imperfect (perhaps unavoidably) system of incentives, coordination is necessary, questioning the need for a decentralized system in the first place. But is that really so bad/superfluous? What if the coordination necessary to make a decentralized system work led more easily to a desirable and elastic result than something crafted by hand. Again, maybe it's too abstract, but I picture a decentralized governance system where members would have to coordinate to achieve a proper equilibrium. For example the biggest hurdle to fighting lobbyism effectively isn't coordination from competing interests, it's the lack of resources. Wouldn't a decentralized system negate the power of money, networking, services, preferential treatment (and even blackmail) even if it still ended up causing/requiring coordination?
Maybe you will consider _not_ downvoting my comment because it will fade out and no one will even be able to see it. That means my ideas will be dismissed without consideration by new people to the thread.
I am not downvoting your comment.