Igor Calzada
This article investigates how Web3 decentralization unfolds in practice and asks two guiding questions: (i) How democratic are decentralized governance systems in practice? (ii) Under what institutional conditions can technological decentralization translate into social inclusion? Based on multi-year ethnographic fieldwork (2022–2025) across Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., Europe, and the Global South, this study draws on participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and comparative analysis of seven ecosystems—Ethereum, MakerDAO, Uniswap, Mastodon, Celo, Grassroots Economics, and GoodDollar. The findings show that participation asymmetries are structural: token-based governance is dominated by a small group of technically skilled or capital-rich actors, while voter turnout often remains below ten percent. Intermediaries such as foundations, developers, NGOs, and cooperatives are indispensable for coordination, contradicting the idea of hierarchy-free decentralization. In contrast, projects that institutionalize clear membership, monitoring, and accountability—particularly in cooperative and federated settings—display stronger democratic resilience. Comparative evidence also reveals oligarchic consolidation in Global North ecosystems and infrastructural exclusion in the Global South. These results substantiate what Richard R. Nelson termed “the Moon and the Ghetto” paradox: extraordinary technical innovation without corresponding social progress. Interpreted through innovation systems theory, the study concludes that advancing decentralized technologies requires parallel investment in mission-oriented institutions that ensure participation, equity, and accountability in digital infrastructures.