Decentralizable systems are more credible if there's a published roadmap.

Many systems aspire to be increasingly decentralized over time.

But decentralization has a cost; it slows the rate of innovation, and trades it off for the possibility of ubiquity.

But if the system is not yet good enough to become ubiquitous, then as innovation slows it can only hit its asymptote, because it can't compete with other alternatives as effectively.

There will never be a good time to decentralize more, especially if the creator has to choose to cede control (vs it happening naturally as the investment of other entities ramps up).

So if there's some central piece of control the creator has to delegate, it's better not to have it be an all-or-nothing moment, because the creator might delay indefinitely.

It's better if there's a published, smooth roadmap of milestones and things that should happen when those milestones are hit.

If the creator doesn't actually do what the roadmap says at those milestones, it reveals that their word shouldn't be trusted, which would lead the ecosystem to lose momentum.

That danger forces the creator to behave aligned with decentralization, even if they might later not want to.

It's similar to throwing your steering wheel out the window to win a game of chicken.