Democracy can be defined as a popularity contest; democracy does not = good. When I and others say "democratized money", it's not to say it is identical to the definition of democracy as it pertains to a populous voting 1 person 1 vote. More like "money that is not controlled by a single source but rather as large a group as cares to participate who also have access to and knowledge of the tech".

Additionaly it's also different as in "the majority does not change my rules", they can be wrong in the long run and my rules become majority again.

When people say democratized anything, it comes across as meaningless marketing speak. I don't mean the traditional non-political use of the word (i.e., simply making something easily accessible to a lot of people).

It's basically trying to claim some good, without having to quantify or justify that in any way.

The US dollar is ultimately controlled by democratic institutions even if you don't count individuals using it as having any control. Therefore it is democratized money by the same vague handwaving.

> "you have a vote to force others to comply to the majority"

is less terrifying to you?

What you're arguing for is "you have a vote (well you don't, but people much richer than you do) to force others to comply to a very small minority", how is that better than majority rule?

Well there are no votes, so you can't force anyone to run anything. You run what you like and hope others do as well. As I said miners follow users, not companies.

i urge you to compare this to any presently-existing monetary system or software project

It might not be "democratic", to me personally it seems fair as you are not forced to run the rules that are imposed by others. It might not be the wise decision, but the market will decide on the "better" rules.

Do you think the 'market' can decide anything if people aren't playing by the 'rules' in the first place? The free market model does not account for widespread fraud.