The problem with [a trusted central authority] is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.
Sure, it's hard to say exactly what Bitcoin is for or against, given that it's a multi-faceted community with many different goals. But to deny that decentralization and lack of central planning is a huge motivation / driver / goal of both the original inception of Bitcoin, and also the community that developed around Bitcoin, is pretty hard to believe.
The original poster insinuated Bitcoin needed all-powerful policy planners ("Davos meetings"), which is false. All that is taking place is community discussions about scaling (block size increase), but it would be absolutely incorrect to compare this to "Davos meetings".
"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party."
¹ https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf