Getting the critical mass of public spirit necessary to sustain any self-correcting decentralized trust system is going to run smack into the individual tendency to optimize one's commitment of personal resources toward their own personal objectives.

Asking people, or even tricking them through hype, to voluntarily deleverage themselves (through agreeing to a set of voluntarily sharing constraints encoded as rules in a 'trustless' network protocol, ie blockchain) will never work at global scale, until a global scale referendum of some sort addresses and settles very basic questions about what we prioritize and value as a civilization. Such as "are centralized systems of governance so hopelessly broken that the only remedy is to devolve trust back to individuals, which has the side effect of settling them with ascertain decision cost premium that they have hitherto instinctively tried to optimize away by outsourcing it to specialized custodial agents?" "Are people really willing to pay a decentralization premium that isn't subsidized by a hype and speculation casino game?"

Until this discussion occurs (and I'm not holding my breath), every nominally 'flat' system of governance that is sold as a solution to centralized control will merely serve the opposite goal, by obfuscating its underlying informally centralized hierarchy of leverage and influence.