Why do we care about the centralized authority part so much? There are a lot of problem domains where zero trust is not desirable or understood to be a fool's e

Why do we care about the centralized authority part so much? There are a lot of problem domains where zero trust is not desirable or understood to be a fool's errand. In a B2B setting where you have 3 parties working together on an integration project wherein 2 parties are B2B vendors and the 3rd is a B2C org, where does the centralization reside? What about vendors of the B2B vendors? I honestly don't know what we are getting at with this word anymore. If we were to apply something like SQL Server w/ Ledger tables (i.e. centralized blockchain) to this kind of problem in my shop, we would almost certainly find a solution that all parties would find agreeable. This forces you to trust 1-2 parties (i.e. Microsoft themselves), but in the above we agree that for many (most?) areas this may likely be explicitly desirable. There are also technologies (again, centralized) that provide non-repudiation through the hosting layer itself. Example of this being something like Azure Confidential Ledger. The part where this seems to get frustrating for people is the desired crystalline & immediate nature of the system. If you operate with the tiniest amount of extra flexibility you can get so much more done - E.g. perhaps the business can review a data tamper event tomorrow with their partners on the phone.