You're over abstracting a very simple thing. No user can, for example, change the inflationary rate of a decentralized cryptocurrency. It requires network consensus. The party making the change would need to control the vast majority of the consensus power, whether than is ASICs for pow or base currency for pos, at which point they have massive incentive to not do that on account of the loss of power destroying all their wealth would represent.

Non-fiat currency is the most egalitarian system possible.

> It requires network consensus.

No, it requires network control. Consensus among a large number of independent participants who agree on a change is one way to have that control.

But another way is to have a minority of participants that control a disproportionately large fraction of mining decide what to do.

The history of crypto shows that over time, miners tend to consolidate until eventually you have a small number of miners who significant leverage over the ledger. None of that should be surprising: economy of scale is economics 101 and certainly applies to miners who buy and run hardware in bulk.

> Non-fiat currency is the most egalitarian system possible.

Egalitarianism is a property of human behavior and social systems, not the hardware that humans may or may not be using as intended.