I agree that these terms have a meaning (though hard to pin down), but on the other hand, both blockchains and decentralisation have been proven many times in t

I agree that these terms have a meaning (though hard to pin down), but on the other hand, both blockchains and decentralisation have been proven many times in the past to be of limited use to ordinary people. I don’t need or want a decentralised currency with trustless consensus and irreversible transactions, I’d contend very few need that. There are so many disadvantages that flow from the choices made in Bitcoin as a currency, and many of those choices are inherent to the things people claim are good about it. Try to remove them and you are completely reworking it. Just as one example you can’t have instant confirmations in a fully distributed system which shares a ledger because there are n sources of truth, not one, and eventual consistency is a terrible idea for a currency. In any financial transaction I want to verify the identity of the counterparty, I want to manage risk by having a known third party manage the transaction and disputes, I want instant confirmation and low stable fees and prices, and I certainly don’t want to have any uncertainty (even for minutes) about whether a transaction worked. I too would love a truly supranational currency, but would want a very conservative one with light inflation built in (i.e loses value v. slowly) controlled by a transparent governing board with a financial stake in stability and low fees, decentralised records on the level of institutions, not the entire ledger, and not one which enriches early adopters. For this reason alone I think the built in advantages for early adopters in bitcoin was a terrible mistake - it attracts the wrong kind of people and encourages shilling and irrational exuberance when the value goes up quickly, which is deadly to a real currency.