Most of these issues are non technical. Any technology that does anything with money will attract scammers, criminals, charlatans, etc. like a corpse attracts flies. That's not a fundamental problem with the underlying technology but actually a robustness test for it.
The banking system fails this test regularly BTW. It too attracts the same variety of people and recent history is littered with people testing the limits of the system and causing minor and major financial incidents as a side effect. Our legal system actively protects these shady types too. You could say that blockchains are designed to function despite the presence of such people. So, their presence is a given but not necessarily a bug.
Now specifically Ethereum 2 is proof of stake; not proof of work. So it has limited energy issues associated with v1 and Bitcoin. This also kills the mining use case and shifts power to those holding stake.
Transaction complexity and throughput remain problematic compared to non block chain based systems but are probably good enough for most use cases and of course vastly better than v1, which I would argue was never really suitable for any serious use cases because of its slow transactions and uncertain outcomes when they spanned minutes to hours instead of seconds (which also stops any kind of interactive payment scenario dead in its tracks). Using side chains for micro transactions, payment channels, etc. is a common/practical workaround and probably also desirable from a privacy point of view.
Pseudo decentralization is policy choice. Different blockchains make different trade-offs here. There's inherent friction between purists/utopioans on one hand and people to do real stuff on the other hand. Pure decentralization is mostly not very practical in a lot of domains and technically overkill for common requirements. In the case of a financial system, you in any case need the buy-in of legal entities and governments. There's an implied level of central control. That's why ripple and stellar are popular with fintechs. Good enough as a shared ledger and for implementing e.g. remittance networks and complex financial products. Enabling anarchists is not a design goal for them.
In the end, a blockchain is just a tamper proof block chain. You use it in a legal system that may or may not allow you to use it and that may or may not provide you some legal protections against ripped off. Facebook found that out the hard way when they tried to compete with central banks last year and then realized that that would put them in the cross hairs of financial authorities, which is when they backtracked their position doing something weaker at some point later (probably never at this point). Stepping outside the common legal frameworks is only easy if you are not really a part of it to begin with.