Reading your comment I think it's safe to conclude you won't be considered a Libra or Digital Yuan "fanboy" ;-). And while I agree to your remark of the original Bitcoin vision where a decentralized ledger allows for a trustless ecosystem where value can be stored, transferred and managed by individuals (i.e. "Be Your Own Bank"), it could also be reasoned that not everybody in the world (the elderly for example) are able to properly self-manage their own funds. Just think about a very realistic scenario where somebody loses - for one way or another - access to the majority or even all of their funds, and nobody in the world is able to help them recover said access.
Having multiple "tastes" / variants of crypto, digital assets, is a good thing, I think. Being able to make a choice which portion of your funds you want to manage yourself, and to place in the hands of a trusted party / custodian, whether or not a currency is issues centralized or decentralized, is always a good thing, I think.
Theory (e.g. "be your own bank") is one thing, practice is another. Decentralized consensus absolutely has its advantages, but arguably also its disadvantages (efficiently moving forward, being decisive, for example).
I personally welcome any initiative that adds more options to the table!
Oh, you mean me, here on Steem. A cursory examination of my wallet will reveal I am the poster boy for that financial harm.
As to whether centralized digital currency adds options to the table or not, I reckon that is self evident. China is not going to promote decentralization, and neither is Zuckerborg. Any initiative that poses as an alternative to central banks but actually centralizes control - and establishes greater financial control, as DLTs do - is contrary to the freedom BTC was claimed to offer. These currencies are wolves in sheep's fleece.