Its worth collecting and documenting some specific examples, and then critiquing them. For example, the rise of open source and of wikipedia should be listed as examples of successful decentralized, self-selected, scaled communities. (which btw, did not require blockchain for success) But the success is not unblemished: wikipedia has a number of bad actors and frauds that have risen to high levels (i.e. have powerful admin rights) and that the organization seems unwilling or incapable of removing these assholes, or limiting the damage that they cause. The open-source movement has been overwhelmingly successful where the technology it produces aligns with corporate interests (cloud server companies) but mediocre where there is no such alignment (the Linux desktop, which is OK, but has not taken the world by storm; in part because there is not a sufficient number of programmers devoted to it)

Its also worth noting some successful decentralized, self-selected, scaled communities which have explicitly evil intentions: for example, the 4-chan crowd, who were instrumental in the Trump election, and who are very interested in “crashing the system” (something that Breitbart lead Steve Bannon has been quoted as saying) — ”crashing the system” — using chaos and confusion to destroy law and order, and to bring anarchy and feudalism to the US. In a sense, medieval princes were much like mafia bosses — running a protection racket — libertarianism taken to it’s logical conclusion: every man for himself, where the most powerful extort from the weakest.

The point here is that the “future of organization” is interesting, and worth understanding, but must not be interpreted as an unameliorated good. It can well enable some true awfulness.