The premise of your argument is incorrect. One does not need to participate in securing the network for the network to represent the "democratization of financial power". Democratization doesn't mean "voting", it means something like make equally accessible. What crypto does is make financial transactions equally accessible. The method by which this is accomplished (proof of work/stake) isn't equally accessible, but that is a tangential concern to the accessibility of executing financial transactions. What matters is the miners can't unilaterally interfere with the expected function of the network. Further, that the coordination required to interfere with the expected function is implausible and/or prohibitively expensive.
>The level of coordination isn't implausible either, it's already happened several times already
For instance? And what may have happened in the early days of the network is irrelevant to what is possible today.
>The level of coordination isn't implausible either, it's already happened several times already
For instance? And what may have happened in the early days of the network is irrelevant to what is possible today.