Centralized solutions vs federated solutions is like monarchy vs republic.
Under monarchy, the power of the monarch is greatly amplifed. A great monarch can accomplish beneficial reforms at scope and speed not achievable by any republic. A bad monarch can inflict damage at scope and speed unprecedented in any republic.
Equally, a centralized network can achieve colossal heights of UX, security, speed, architectural cleanliness, etc; moxie wrote a lot about that. Or it can fall into bottomless chasms of poor UX, poor functioning, and insecurity (examples are many, take maybe ICQ by the early 2000s). By construction, three's no way for a part of the network to avoid the common fate, try and find a recourse, etc.
A republic (and a democracy) severely limits the power of officials it elects, more, it intentionally pitches different branches against each other in a system of checks and balances. This prevents it from achieving grandiose visions in short time, most of the time, even when the best officials are elected. It also prevents it from turning into hell, most of the time, even if some egregiously bad officials are elected to the highest offices.
Same with federated networks: they offer a much less coherent UX, are more complex, less powerful, more slow, harder to upgrade — but they are also resilient against a bad actor that grabs power, for they lack a SPOF, and have a healthy nonzero amount of distrust between parts. If one part rots, others remain, and new can be made.
So yes, bet on the centralized system, a brilliant benevolent dictator if you think the dictator outlives your need to use a system. Bet on moxie, Steve Jobs, or king Arthur to live effectively forever.
Or bet on an open standard with a half-dozen implementations of varying quality if you think that things will inevitably go sour in some of them during your lifetime, or whatever is the time scope for your use of the system.
There is no single right answer, no Goldilocks solution. Choose your poison.