A common talking point is that Bitcoin is decentralized, while fiat is centralized. But this framing has less to do with how the systems actually work, and more to do with how Bitcoin supporters want fiat to look by comparison.

When I send fiat, I can choose from multiple completely distinct transfer methods: PayPal, Western Union, ACH, SWIFT, Zelle, Venmo, and so on. These systems are operated by different companies, run on different infrastructure, and have no technical dependency on each other.

That is decentralization, not just in theory but in practice. It is the same kind we see with package delivery (UPS, FedEx, USPS) or messaging (Signal, WhatsApp, SMS).

And just like with those systems, regulation does not make something centralized. With a lawful order, the government can still intercept, block, or reverse a package. The same applies to fiat, but that does not mean the network itself is centralized.

In other words, fiat transfers have no single point of failure. Fiat does not “go down.” If one service fails, others remain fully operational.

Some argue fiat is centralized because it is issued by a central bank. That is true, but issuance is not the same as transfer. Tether (USDT), for example, is issued by a single company, yet it is often described as decentralized because it can move across blockchains and platforms. By that standard, fiat transfer is just as decentralized as many so-called decentralized systems.

So why is fiat still called centralized?

Because it sounds better for Bitcoin. It is a rhetorical move, not a technical distinction. Fiat is called centralized not because it has a single infrastructure or point of failure, but because it is regulated and compliant. Bitcoin is called decentralized even though most people use it through centralized exchanges, custodians, and infrastructure.

Let’s be honest:
Calling fiat “centralized” and Bitcoin “decentralized” is a branding decision, not a technical one.

And it works, because “decentralized” sounds a lot better than saying “unlawful.”