Any distributed p2p, digital currency which relies on trust to make it work is nothing more than a horrible mistake a best, and at worst it's a scam.
As soon as you make that trust sacrifice, you might as well throw it all in the bin and use VISA, which has none of the drawbacks associated with crypto, and is already accepted everywhere.
If you think it is better to use VISA it feels like you see more drawbacks in crypto rather than benefits. Maybe you don't want mass crypto adoption and use it for your everyday payments.
I think monsterer2 is pointing out the absurdity of centralized cryptocurrencies rather than claiming that decentralized cryptocurrencies are non-viable.
I'm not saying that people are not fond of federated trust. I'm just saying it's a regressive and naive approach at cryptocurrencies.
I can see many cryptocurrencies that try to be more decentralized as being centralized in the beginning so this may be a direction that it is perceived in a later stage of a centralized strategy.
There's no hint of a later decentralized stage though. Even if such a stage would be advertised, its feasability would be rather questionable seeing how centralization lies at the very heart of this project. Centralized token issuance, centralized consensus... heck, even the
name "Proof of Honesty" is trademarked apparently.