This sort of "Once we've made everything perfect" reasoning doesn't really reflect reality all that much though; the point is that centralized systems will always be vulnerable to these problems; even if we temporarily fix them, that'll be an exception and sooner or later the systems will fall back into their broken state.
From that premise that the probem is universal, the deduction that the solution is also not just a temporary fix seems like the only reasonably conclusiont to me.
I'm not completely sure whether you're arguing that the bitcoin hype will pass once we've sorted out a few problems, or just that it'd be a nicer world if that could ever be the case; but either way, I don't think cryptocurrencies should be a last resort but instead become the norm. Offense is the best defense, after all.
I would argue that centralization is inherent in most humans instincts. To put it another way, many people like having a leader.
In fact people like leaders so much that exposed to a capricious and cruel world they'll invent imaginary and often cruel ones just to give the world a sense of order. Think the old testament God or lizard people conspiracy theories.
Given we're going to huge groups of people running around following leaders I think our best effort is spent trying to make the selection of those leaders pick non-evil people who run vaguely meritocratic and fair systems. Rather than trying to engineer ideal de-centralized systems _which will also have to be robust against the mob following their evil leaders.
Obviously this is a false dichotomy and we can do both, but please don't give up on good leadership, people need it and there's plenty of examples of it exiting.
This causes such a problem with governance though: Instead of voting for (or contributing to) ideas/policies directly, you have to translate your preference into a selection/ranking of the people who sound like they might support the ideas that you would like to see in your democracy. Sounds like a pretty crappy codec for that kind of signal tbh.
I would go even further in your argument and say that the escape-hatches are a requirement to keep the centralized system in check. This is a bit like the free market argument in the sense that it creates competition.
From that premise that the probem is universal, the deduction that the solution is also not just a temporary fix seems like the only reasonably conclusiont to me.
I'm not completely sure whether you're arguing that the bitcoin hype will pass once we've sorted out a few problems, or just that it'd be a nicer world if that could ever be the case; but either way, I don't think cryptocurrencies should be a last resort but instead become the norm. Offense is the best defense, after all.