I would argue that centralized control lends itself to corruption more easily and distributed control.

After all, if there exist a central authority, only that one authority being corrupt messes up everything.

On the other hand, a distributed scenario makes it more difficult for a handful of well-connected profit-motivated bad actors to corrupt the entire thing.

But a distributed set-up is more complex (and more expensive), that's for sure

I would argue that a rich actor can more easily corrupt a large number of small autonomous feifdoms by a combination of bribes, equivocations, and good ol' divide-and-conquer strategies. A low barrier to entry to acquire absolute control over a small but critical piece of Internet routing infrastructure may democratize that infrastructure in theory, but in practice it also lowers the barrier to entry for corruption without some additional system-wide checks and balances. Otherwise, a not-so-rich but enterprising corrupt actor could incrementally buy up the small pieces and use them as leverage to acquire more and more pieces until they own the majority of them.

I disagree but also think you're correct.

if one rich actor can gobble up the small decentralized pieces then they have become a single centralized piece.

In concept, I believe you're 100% correct. I really, really do. But in real life, I feel it's just enough control and power (that they wield currently) that many people in the same role would be subject to temptation of being corrupted. Hence, not unlike general governing, what we need is control by the many, and not by the aristocratic few.

I agree, and will add that radical transparency, in addition to democratic oversight, can counteract corruption. Control by the many, but subject to secret manipulations by the few, is fairly vulnerable to corruption.

Fully agreed; transparency is absolutely essential.