One of the things that I admire most about your writing is that you backup your statements with actual real references, which I am sad to say I do not see enough of these days.
A few thoughts:
Your central theme of 'blockchain-sm' (which I'm sure will become a new buzzword), is based on the belief that those preaching about the blockchain have a 'down with central banks' mentality. Let's not let "them" meddle in our money. I suggest a different perspective that the value of blockchain technology is that for the first time ever, it makes it technically infeasible for any bad actor to mess with the system.
I have to 'trust' that a bank (whether central or not) will handle my money properly, that it will not suddenly show some strange balance today that was different from yesterday. I am not saying this is a bad thing, our society, as you have noted, is foundationally built on trust models. Blockchain allows users to transport / exchange a digital currency in a way that cannot be manipulated, This is something that no current digital "fiat" currency can offer, at least not from a technological point of view.
To give a different example, Facebook, could if it wanted to, start sending fake messages to my friends list that appear to be from me shouting all kinds of racial slurs and what not, causing untold damage to my friendships and reputation. I trust that they won't do this, but I am also well aware that some disgruntled employee could do it some day if they wanted to - In a decentralized social network based on blockchain, this would not be possible.
Sure someone can still try ruin my reputation, just as someone can still con me out of my bitcoin. The blockchain does not solve con artists, it solves the technological problem of the manipulation of data by unauthorized bad agents.
I suggest it is not an "us" (blockainism-ers?) against "them" central banks/authorities. In an ideal world, those banks, countries and states, would simply adopt the technologically superior approach to trading digital assets instead of the existing system which sits there waiting to be manipulated.
This likely means a new way for the banks to do business, the same way digital photos replaced film development, E-books replace hardcovers, and email replaced old fashioned letters. Now I'm not saying that new is always better, but as the previous samples show it does seem to 'replace the old' once accepted and adopted by the next generation.
Centralization and De-centralization, Trust and Transparency can co-exist together without one side trying to 'trump' the other.
