Governance or Mythology? Philosophical Paradoxes of Decentralization

This chapter explores DAOs not merely as technical systems but as political, cultural, and symbolic institutions. While smart contracts and token voting provide the operational substrate, DAOs also generate myths, identities, and narratives that shape legitimacyLegitimacy and collective action. Behind the rhetoric of “decentralizationDecentralization” lie tensions between openness and power concentration, transparencyTransparency and opacity, participation and exclusion. The analysis frames DAOs through multiple lenses: as communities, enterprises, institutions, and proto-states, each with distinct challenges of legitimacyLegitimacy, accountability, and cohesion. Drawing on Hayek, Rawls, and Foucault, the chapter highlights how decentralized governance embodies paradoxes: emergent order coexists with engineered incentives; procedural transparencyTransparency does not guarantee fairness; invisible architectures of power persist beneath claims of neutrality. Case reflections on charismatic founders, liberation narratives, and governance washing illustrate how decentralizationDecentralization often blends institutional experimentation with ideological myth-making. The chapter argues that DAOs are normative laboratories of the twenty-first century, where code, community, and culture intertwine. Sustainable governance requires moving from mythology to design: embedding shared values, reflexivity, and accountability into institutional practice. Ultimately, the paradox of DAOs lies not in escaping power but in transforming it into visible, contestable, and collectively stewarded responsibility.