A lot of people repeat what they hear without giving things any thought. I say it's gibberish because it doesn't mean anything. Try to explain what characteristics set a decentralised actor apart from a centralised actor. Remember that you can't use the word decentralised/centralised, because that's the words we're trying to define.

According to wikipedia, under 'Central Bank': "a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base. Most central banks also have supervisory and regulatory powers to ensure the stability of member institutions, to prevent bank runs, and to discourage reckless or fraudulent behavior by member banks."

Since the major collapses were by organizations which had a monopoly on creating their own currencies ("tokens") you could call them 'central banks'. Note I am not defending cryptocurrencies -- I am pointing out that you calling something 'gibberish' when people do have an understanding of the meaning is not productive.

Sorry. We were talking about what it means for an "actor" to be "decentralised". Now you're saying that a central bank is someone who has a monopoly on issuing their own currency. So apparently I'm a central bank, you're a central bank, the Chinese restaurant around the corner is a central bank... First of all, none of these people or organisations are central banks. And second, we weren't talking about central banks. I say it again: we were talking about what it means for an "actor" to be "decentralised".

This is one of those 'can't win' situations because no matter how I respond you will find something to pick apart and keep decrying your victory. Good day.

You could give simple, logical, concrete definition of 'decentralised actor' and show the concept isn't gibberish. If you can't come up with anything, maybe you have to concede that it is gibberish.