"sycophants" eh?

Interesting choice of vocabulary you have here.
Only know one other person around here that talks like this.

I am not some little bitch who surrounds myself with yes-men who stroke my ego.

So you can drop that shit right now.

Since you don't seem to understand the topic at hand let me spell it out for you:

• CBDC is disrupting central banking; this is useful to us.
• Corporate/celebrity tokens keep the regulators busy: this is useful to us.
• Centralized shitcoins are useful to us for the exact same reason.

While these dinosaurs are running around playing whack-a-mole with all the low-hanging fruit, we gain strength and expand our censorship resistant infrastructure. We don't have to worry about all the garbage out there, because that garbage acts as a meat-shield for everything else.

Now do you have anything useful to add to this narrative?

Or do you want to keep pursuing this bullshit semantical argument about the definition of "decentralization"?

Like seriously you look like such a jackass right now.
It's like a child came into my comments after reading the first 14 words of the post looking to start an argument over a subject that actually has nothing to do with the main topic.

Did you read farther than this?

You've written 3 comments so far, and it is impossible to tell if you actually read past the first 14 words, ass.

Come in here and think you can just insult my character and argue about the definition of a single word that has no relevance within the macro context of the original post? Get the fuck out, kid. Go troll someone else. You've brought nothing to the table except opened with a passive-aggressive backhanded comment followed by nitpicking the definition of a single word within the article.