I see, very interesting insight thanks! When you say technological decentralization, does it mean there were no servers (similar to Bisq) and you had to run a client to keep your offers online?
Because if the software is open-source and the architecture is really decentralized, people could surely keep the network running, no matter if the creator (or anyone else) wishes so or not - right?
Honestly, I have little knowledge about how the Bisq network works, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no central server that makes Bisq exchange operate. In fact, in order to access trading offers, users first need to install a Bisq node, which will communicate with other nodes in a peer-to-peer network. In a peer-to-peer network, each node is both a server and a client, each node keeps all necessary information and hands over it to peers it has a connection with. Bisq is decentralized for two reasons: it has no central point of failure, and it is built on top of another decentralized network, namely the bitcoin network. It is a perfect example of decentralization on a technical level. Is it also decentralized on a social level? I don't know. It is open-source software to which everyone can contribute, but still, it has founders and lead developers. Will the project continue to exist in its current form should all these people suddenly disappear? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much influence all these people have: if the level of influence is such that it allows them to make (useful) changes to the protocol, then this network is not that decentralized on a social level. Take Ethereum, for example, it uses proof-of-work, peer-to-peer topology, and "immutable" smart contracts - the signs of technical decentralization - but it still has a founder who is able to make arbitrary changes to improve his "decentralized" blockchain. Another example of weak social decentralization is premine, which allows founders to control networks even more.