Centralized funds are fine by me as a means of getting money where it needs to go, such as lent to entrepreneurs or issued as currency such as a money order. The more people using the currency, the more regular the price of it will become, so anything lending to enhanced utilization would be positive I think. In the late 1700s in North America some of the bank currencies were more stable and worth more than the government issued currencies.
( The deflationary nature of bitcoin is also sometimes argued on here as the reason it could not be well used for lending, but I think the only obstacle is to tie contracts to some more standardized value of goods like the USD price of wheat or exchange rate. In that event even if the value of BTC was inflating in relation to the USD or whatever, the contract would still not require a fixed amount of BTC but rather an amount modified against purchasing power of some other unit of measure -- basically what the US should have been doing over the past years in business instead of inflating the money supply at the source which inevitably leads to the destabilizing economic disparities we see today. The point of the fed was to expand and contract the money supply as needed, but all they've done over the past 50 years is inflate it. )