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.