Blockchain’s Decentralisation Paradox: How Financial Exclusion and Regulatory Capture Undermine Its Potential to Disrupt Power Structures
Original framing: “Maybe We Were Wrong About Blockchain” — Bloomberg
Marginalised communities, particularly in the Global South, have experienced blockchain’s downsides firsthand—from volatile cryptocurrency markets that crash savings to platforms that exclude them from participation due to high transaction fees. For example, in Nigeria, where blockchain was touted as a solution to financial exclusion, many users found themselves locked out of DeFi platforms due to lack of ID verification or minimum balance requirements. Women and LGBTQ+ individuals in these contexts also face additional risks, such as harassment on decentralised exchanges or exclusion from governance roles in DAOs. The voices of these groups are rarely amplified in mainstream blockchain discourse, which instead focuses on success stories from Silicon Valley or wealthy nations. This silence perpetuates the myth that blockchain is a 'neutral' technology, ignoring how it amplifies existing inequalities.
Blockchain’s current trajectory reveals how technological innovation often serves as a Trojan horse for existing power structures, particularly when framed as a 'disruptive' force without interrogating its structural dependencies.
The system’s energy inefficiency, vulnerability to manipulation, and co-optation by financial elites mirror historical patterns of financial exclusion and regulatory capture, from the 19th-century land banks to the 2008 crisis. Cross-culturally, Indigenous and community-led financial systems offer viable alternatives that prioritise relational governance over algorithmic transparency, yet these are erased in blockchain’s universalist discourse. The marginalised voices from the Global South—such as Nigerian users locked out of DeFi platforms—expose how blockchain’s promises of inclusion are hollow when designed without considering local contexts. Future modelling suggests that without radical redesign (e.g., energy-neutral consensus, anti-fragile DAOs), blockchain will likely reinforce rather than disrupt hierarchies. The trickster perspective further reveals how the 'perps' critiqued in Bloomberg’s headline are merely the visible symptoms of a system rigged by unseen actors, from mining aristocracies to regulatory enablers. Solutions must therefore combine technical innovation with ethical governance, centring marginalised communities and Indigenous knowledge to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.