Then it's not clear in what way you expect economists to hypothetically use that term, even in principle. Your argument becomes unfalsifiable. If using the term

Then it's not clear in what way you expect economists to hypothetically use that term, even in principle. Your argument becomes unfalsifiable. If using the term central to describe the "central bank" isn't a prime instance of economists using the term centralized, then it's not clear that anything could ever possibly satisfy your standard. I could go on to show you how "centralized finance" returns over half a million scholarly publications on Google Scholar, many of which predate Bitcoin, to discuss centralized payment systems, centralized monetary systems, centralized exchanges, centralization of finance in China but as I said before, this is such an obtuse discussion at this point it's not clear that anything I ever produce could ever change your mind. It's not like "centralized psychology" returns half a million results, or "centralized math" returns half a million results (centralized math mostly refers to centralization in the education system)... but "centralized finance" does. All I can say then is that empirically, if I talk about a centralized Internet (700,000 results), people are able to understand what it means... if I talk about a centralized monetary system or centralized banking system, people understand that too. These all appear to be commonly discussed and researched topics that people are aware of. Someone might need a precise definition of "centralized psychology" or "centralized chemistry" since those topics do not seem to produce much of any academic research, but centralized finance appears to be well understood. If you don't believe it, you can see for yourself by doing a search and going over the abstract of several academic papers that use the term without having to spend paragraphs precisely defining it.