Theoretically, it would not be possible.

To break it simply, it's like asking 'is it possible to cure cancer?'. 

The ideal answer is that, yes. The real answer, however, would be not possible.

I am answering this question based on utilitarianism, where individuals or groups would maximise their own profits/ utility. In the case of cancer, unfortunately, there would be conflict of interests between the researcher, general public and the pharmaceutical companies. Researchers and pharmaceutical companies (not all) basically need funding or profits to sustain their work. However, general public would need the cure to minimize their costs in medical treatment (in other words, increase their utility). Unfortunately, there would be no true solution for this, as both parties will always fight to maximize their utility.

The problem with decentralization is that, there would always be a central entity who would not be willing to give up the centralization power. This means, there would not be a truly decentralized society at all. The only way to solve this fallacy is to share the same goal and value. 

In Steemit, it is evident that not all of the participants are willing to add value to the system. Instead, they are just here for easy money. Unless a common value is established amongst all the participants, the true decentralization of Steemit would not be possible at the moment. Particularly, the usage of vote bot and self-voting are actually bad for curating organic article on the platform, but people still use it anyway.