Federico, now that I've read your essay, I have a comment on part of it. In relation to decentralized currencies, you say that "They don't require trust from any of the parties involved in the transaction", which makes no sense to me, as the system itself has to be at least partially centrally regulated, both in distributing the original numbers/values (deciding what the requirements are for "earning" money), and in brokering trades. It is also democratic in the verification process, from what I understand, and if one individual or organization takes over control of more than 50% of the verification system, they have control over everyone, in the same mob rule way that the current governments of so many countries are right now (which results in so much discrimination and repression and aggression against minorities). For things to be truly decentralized, everyone would be in charge of individually deciding who gets what value/number when it comes to distribution for each unique situation where someone is generating or exchanging money. Which would, of course, make the whole competitive/zero-sum idea of quantifying things as a way to regulate resource flow, would be pointless and irrational. As it is, with a centralized way of making decisions about how money is generated, it's pretty irrational/subjective (since the central decision makers are no more or less human and biased than anyone else), but adding another level of irrationality/subjectivity to the mix, by decentralizing the regulation, doesn't solve any problems, as I see it.
We can use those decentralized nodes of communities (based on geographic, profession, life-style preference, and other ways people choose to form collectives), as a way to think globally and act locally, with a truly bottom-up, emergent system of resource allocation that aims to serve everyone's needs with the available materials and information, without adding the complexity and resource depletion of the whole process of quantifying things!
