The key limitation of strict global consensus and hence blockchains is they will always be centralized, because you need a limited, undemocratic quorum to form consensus. Relative to non-consensus peer-to-peer solutions, which can be as free and decentralized as the internet. Only use blockchains if SGC is essential.

While I agree with this statement, I believe that as a counterbalance we have the fact that all the software is open-source and the ability of minorities to perform forks, that provide a way for dissenting minorities to create their own versions and communities, maintaining a dynamic and decentralized ecosystem.

Strict global consensus (SGC) is crucial for transparency and fairness, especially in public goods funding. 

Our focus is to make voting easy and fun with a social media style that helps voters discover new projects and signal preferences pseudo-anonymously.

How does non consensus peer to peer works? How does it achieve fairness?

But, blockchains are logically centralized hence easy to reason about, hence socially valuable. A game of tradeoffs.