These financial markets support decentralization in that it serves to create new markets of opportunity not subservient to current market leaders, but at the same time reject decentralization in ways that would limit the ability for those new networks to monetize in the ways that would provide incentives for the investors and founders. Since decentralization favors the individual over an authority of any type, it's very difficult to gain support for decentralization from within current markets.
I really hope that we rethink the VC and public market-based underpinnings of our current tech echosystem. Many of the problems of what we're experiencing today with the steady decay of open and good quality Internet systems as well as the erosion of distrust in authority can really be traced to the way that money (and fortunes) are generated today. Walled gardens. Captive audiences. Standards balkanization. A shift from pay-to-own to rental subscription models. Locking down the ability for individuals to service their own systems in order to coerce continued vendor purchasing. All of these trends favor centralization, single-vendor ownership, and the behavior of market leaders to acquire and entrench their competition and thereby restrict choice.
I don't want to get too macro, but it's possible even many of the ills of modern day capitalism can be traced to financial markets that motivate bad behavior. But I'll keep it on subject and say that the Internet of the past was the Internet of the past not only because of decentralized technology but because of personal, non-financial interest motivations and technophile centric development that pursued the "what if" instead of the "what's in it for me".
I agree these are rose-tinted glasses, but it can be argued that the Internet would not have developed as it has today if it wasn't for the tech-centric naivete of the early Web innovators.