You just proved OP's point. Cryptocurrency which isn't seriously decentralized is pretty pointless - you might as well just go back Wells Fargo and an Oracle DB.

The very existence of "the node" makes it not a cryptocurrency

It's a cryptocurrency, just not decentralized.

I would have agreed with you but after checking wikipedia, decentralization is actually the first requirement for it to be called a cryptocurrency.

> 1. The system does not require a central authority, its state is maintained through distributed consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency#Formal_definiti...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptocurrency

The codebase doesn't require a central authority, but in practice all keys for top level auth are held by the same entity.

Sort of like how society doesn't require me to not be a billionaire, but in practise i'm not a billionaire.

Code not deployed and probably never tested (perhaps never even worked) does not count.

That makes it a PayPal not a crypto-currency

Decentralization is one of the defining traits of a cryptocurrency. It's like saying a car is an airplane, but without wings. It just doesn't make sense.

Actually it does - even a centrally run crypto has verifiability and other properties that naive "central-database" system does not.

Furthermore, you can run like a consortium style crypto currency, where its jointly controlled by multiple organisations.

I doubt it. What properties specificly?

Hell even bitcoin doesn't have a great notion of verifability (verify what? No double spending? Lets hope your opponent doesn't control 33% of the hash power.). Central-db systems can issue recipts (like humans have been doing for thousands of years). Centralized cyrptocurrencies basically offer the same protection at best and much less at worse.