I think that Professor Galloway makes a strong case about current trends. If decentralized exchanges become an established alternative to centralized exchanges or if decentralized autonomous organizations (dao) take off, then his arguments have less weight.
Where is the decentralization of converting to and from actual money? And how do things like the legal system enter the picture? Right now, if someone exploits a bug or steals keys, you’ve got to fork the blockchain to undo the transactions. Good luck finding the actor and enforcing a judgement.
A centralized exchange provides too much control over how fiat currency becomes cryptocurrency: a single agent has control, can set policies, and the main criticisms of Professor Holloway apply. The problems with Mt. Gox illustrate the problems and dangers of a poorly run centralized exchange. You are right about the dangers of decentralization. The open question for me is will the decentralized technology mature to the point that exploits are handled as part of the DAO instead of requiring a fork. If a fork is always required, then you are right, decentralization will always require some level of centralized governance. If a fork is no longer required to handle exploits, then it may be possible for a service to be truly self-run. The jury is still out and so far, as you point out and Galloway calls out, it is not looking good.
