Why a wallet with three signers is called decentralised

A protocol described its treasury as decentralised because it was held in a multisig requiring two of three signatures. The three signers were the founder, an advisor and an early investor — all known to one another and aligned in interest. Control was shared among three people who could meet in one call. The word decentralised was doing heavy lifting: technically the keys were split, but the decision-making sat with a small, coordinated group that could act as one.

What everyone sees

A user hears multisig and decentralised together and pictures dispersed, independent control that no single party can abuse. The requirement for multiple signatures reads as a check and balance. The user assumes that splitting the keys splits the power, and that a treasury needing several approvals is safe from unilateral capture, without asking who the signers are or how closely their interests align.

What is actually happening

Decentralisation is about the distribution of decision-making power, not merely the count of keys. A two-of-three multisig among aligned insiders is a committee: it can move funds whenever any two of three agree, and three coordinated people agree easily. Governance research distinguishes technical key-splitting from genuine power distribution, and warns that small, socially connected signer sets recreate central control behind a decentralised label. The multisig protects against a single lost key, not against collusion by the group.

Why it stays hidden

The hidden mechanism is the redefinition of decentralisation from power distribution to key count. The multisig is real and provides some security, but the term borrows the political meaning of decentralised — no one in control — while delivering only the mechanical meaning — more than one key. A committee is dressed as a crowd, and the user grants the trust owed to dispersed control to what is actually a coordinated few.