this speaks to substrate >< open source api’s, for example this forum is built using Discourse, we are building out substrate >< discourse integration and consolidating the whole governance experience within a unified UI/experience.
This was delivered by a centralised team of W3F and Parity. Would it have worked if it had been treasury funded to a random and emergent collective?
You can also see this second wave manifest as treasury funded products, tools and media/events funded in relatively indiscriminate fashion - the positives were that this ‘discovery phase’ served to identify domains of investment (problems seeking solutions) but failing to tightly integrate these components under a cohesive strategy, leading into your final point…
Per The state of DotSama there is inherent and likely irreconcilable tension between For Profit Parachains built around independent token economies and Common Good/System chains, which concentrate value accrual around DOT/KSM in their respective ecosystems.
This will likely result in an eventual consolidation of the Polkadot brand under a cohesive ‘super-app’ strategy, as Parity/W3F instigated and driven collectives continue to shape the future of the networks.
I don’t personally believe any parachains can survive in this model, unless they switch strategies towards more common good approaches, or iterate towards new models of value accrual that balance the tensions better than the current model.
In the short/medium term this tension will likely work against the outcomes you would like to see as we see more, not less fragmentation.