^^The reason why there are so many people who just listen to other people is a bit more about human nature. We always feel ingrained to pick a leader, even if you get like 10 people together then you pick a leader. The human nature is to look up to someone, and let "some" of your freedoms go and be decided by someone else.
I share some of your skepticisms regarding leaders, but I still doubt that you are describing people in any kind of an appropriate way because there are leaders in all kinds of capacities, and sometimes there are needs to have one person be responsible for a certain area or activity, but that does not mean that s/he leads in all areas merely because s/he is chosen as a leader..
Somethings need leaders and other things do not, but if you do not have any leader and there are discretionary matters, it might not really matter so much which of the choices are made, but a choice needs to be made, even if there are discretionary matters that are presented to the leader or the group.. and we cannot have everyone trying make all decisions and even decisions for the group's interests.
Another matter relates to decisions regarding whether to uphold decisions that had already been made in previous times or to make changes to existing systems, sometimes there are values to keeping existing systems, sometimes there are needs to tweak and sometimes there are needs to totally abandon certain systems and to establish new ones. We would not want leaders to go beyond their authority, so we want leaders with good judgement, and surely the qualities of good leaders is not easy to find, but sometimes these kinds of people are needed, and it depends on the situation and the scope of the responsibilities whether some people are capable and how are they chosen and whether it might be better to not have any one leader or do we have everyone decide certain things? None of these are easy answers... even if you seem to be suggesting that it is a deficiency in people to want to have leaders.
This is a horrible knowledge that many would argue against, and even prove revolutionaries as examples, but even there we have leaders. Hence, the idea of "letting all the work go, relax, sit down watch some netflix shows and allow another dude to decide on my financial future" seems easy and natural to many people in the world.
There are a lot of so called "libertarians" who are anti-government who seem to think that the world would be better without any government, or they want to describe what kind of government is good and what kind is not good, but sometimes the answers will depend on the will of the group.. which is a kind of government to the extent that there might be a belief that group interests exist that will not necessarily resolve on their own (through voluntary efforts).
I am pretty sure that bitcoin does not take away the need for government and leaders, but there are likely ways that bitcoin will continue to inspire various changes in incentives in connection with money and value which has been a way that governments and leaders have been corrupted through a large portion of human history because there seem to be a lot of ways that money system have devolved into abuses, even if there may have also been times in which monetary systems have brought value to various societies.. and surely some players have been able to profit more than others (Cantillon effect) even when the systems might have been relatively more fair than other systems.
