But more to the point, look at what happened with ETH and ETC. The Ethereum Foundation could have decided to hard fork without any particular % of support. Consensus was needed for price support, not to complete the fork. Let's say they forked with only 25% support. The new fork retains the ETH brand. The old chain rebrands (i.e. ETC). The market then votes on how much they value the old versus the new. Now look at ETH/ETC since the fork: the market is saying that they feel more comfortable with a known, trusted authority (i.e. small group of developers with trademarks and a conference schedule) than they do with true democratized first principles of immutable code. I'm not a righteous zealot, I agree with what ETH did and would have done the same thing; I am just calling it out for what it is.
Humans love to collect, horde, and trade items: puka shells, tulips, dot com stocks. Speculation is hard-wired into the human DNA. At some points, asset prices become hopelessly disconnected from the value and utility of the underlying asset. I think the initial rush into crypto was healthy because it funded (and continues to fund) hundreds of full-time researchers who can push the field forward. But at some point the speculative fever becomes a disease that can hurt more than it helps. The sooner we develop real-world applications based on public blockchains as an anchor-point to reality, the better.
But the fork wasn't a referendum on the governance model of Ethereum. If you picked ETC, you get your liberterian utopia - but you also get a chain where someone made off with 10% of the Ether supply.
Every market transaction since then has been a referendum on which model the market prefers. Ultimately, the market price dictates a LOT of down-stream behaviors, e.g. some miners will switch back and forth between ETH and ETC (and other alt-coins) based on hourly yield.
