That's just the label, nothing decentralised is left. See, as it turns out, to trade you need to find people and people are found in central locations. Okay, there are still many exchanges but this is mostly incidental and it makes sense to end up with single exchange eventually.

I'm enjoying the irony that practical crypto could not possibly be less like an decentralised peer-to-peer system for exchanging value if it tried to be.

As you soon as someone creates an exchange - and especially as soon as they start packaging funds into absolutely any kind of financial instrument/service - they've effectively reinvented deregulated banking with no deposit protection and extra risk.

and additionally who run these exchange has no economical background whatsoever. Like an ignorant trying to reinvent the wheel into a squared one and poaching it as a new invention.

But is "decentralized"...

Don't let the schadenfreude and confirmation bias get to you. Centralized exchanges never had anything to do with the value proposition of cryptocurrency. And trading on them is just speculation with no relation to crypto. It's what gets views in the press, though.

Whenever news like these occur there is always a bunch of "I knew it would all fall down" self-validation comments in HN. Yet it really doesn't fall down, after over a decade. Perhaps it's time to consider that you are looking at the wrong thing and barking at the wrong tree.

Of all these collapses there is 0 decentralized exchanges (i.e. on-chain) involved. Pretty much because they can't, by design. That's the value proposition. Unstoppable exchanges, transparent, publicly verifiable, highest availability.

What you have seen all this year is more and more validation that centralized finance is problematic by design (3AC, Celsius, BlockFi, FTX...) while decentralized finance comes unscathed (Uniswap, Aave, Curve, MakerDAO...).