One facet of the centralization versus decentralization debate is: competition.
What would the personal computing CPU market look like if the market were monopolized under intel for the last 20 years under a centralized format? Competition between intel and AMD incentivized CPU advancement, innovation and discovering methods to produce chips at lower cost to consumers.
Under a centralized format all of these free market, competition derived, benefits disappear. This same precedent could apply to currencies.
When they're too centralized in a way which restricts competition and innovation what is left trends towards industry wide stagnation which translates to exorbitantly high prices and corruption rather than progression or cost effectiveness.
This is certainly true in respect to CPU chips
But how well does it translate to currencies? The first thing which comes to mind is that while fiat currencies are certainly centralized, they are no more centralized than the chip makers themselves as economic entities (or any other manufacturer out there). Indeed, if it were only Intel, or IMB in pre-PC era, we would likely not have a personal computer in every home. But is this really different with currencies? After all, there are over 100 fiat currency "producers" out there (but only half a dozen chip manufacturers), so you can't possibly say that there is no competition between currencies (if that was your point)
I'll contend: one of the key reasons behind the recent tech boom is the decentralized format under which capitalist countries operate.
Google & apple began as small businesses run out of someone's garage. A massive amount of innovation and progress defining the tech sector came about as a result of open door policies where anyone who feels they have what it takes to compete is free to try their luck.
Currencies by contrast have centralized, closed door, policies which one might characterize as restricting innovation and progress. Banks have the same. Could centralization, lack of competition and monopolization of currencies be correlated with stagnation, lack of innovation & progress?
I guess you are trying to throw out the child along with the bath here
You are talking about how some entity (like Google or Apple) started, but is it relevant to the point discussed? Even if Apple had started in a garage, this doesn't change the fact that it has always been centralized as an economic entity. In fact, Jobs was famous for his authoritarian style of management and autocratic leadership, while Google is said to be rather flexible and liberal in this regard. I think you can easily draw an analogy here with a fixed exchange rate currency versus a floating exchange rate currency. But this is still irrelevant since what matters here is the competition between currencies in the world currency market which is essentially the same as the competition between companies in their respective markets
