It is demonstrable that digital currency enables subjection of individuals to totalitarian control financially. Therefore, no matter how existential the perceived need - indeed, the more powerful the engineered need the less I will be likely to adopt it - I will invest in other mechanisms. I don't need to buy from China. I don't seek to further globalization. Like money in Yap, I have found that the the greater amount of resources I accumulate in currency, the greater the burden of obligation weighing on me.
The vision of BTC that was sold to the market was of a decentralized control of storage and transfer of financial value. It has proved to be exactly the opposite, and both Libra and the coming Yuan are being provided by the most totalitarian entities today extant. Mark Twain said that it is far easier to show someone that another is attempting to fool them than it is to convince them they have already been fooled. He was right, and adopting any financial mechanism put forth by the extant powers that be expecting greater decentralization to result reveals the truth of Mark Twain's adage.
Traps are always easy to fall into. Falling out of them once you're in one is not even possible. Avoiding a trap in the middle of the road may be inconvenient, but it is the only way to remain free.
Reading your comment I think it's safe to conclude you won't be considered a Libra or Digital Yuan "fanboy" ;-). And while I agree to your remark of the original Bitcoin vision where a decentralized ledger allows for a trustless ecosystem where value can be stored, transferred and managed by individuals (i.e. "Be Your Own Bank"), it could also be reasoned that not everybody in the world (the elderly for example) are able to properly self-manage their own funds. Just think about a very realistic scenario where somebody loses - for one way or another - access to the majority or even all of their funds, and nobody in the world is able to help them recover said access.
Having multiple "tastes" / variants of crypto, digital assets, is a good thing, I think. Being able to make a choice which portion of your funds you want to manage yourself, and to place in the hands of a trusted party / custodian, whether or not a currency is issues centralized or decentralized, is always a good thing, I think.
Theory (e.g. "be your own bank") is one thing, practice is another. Decentralized consensus absolutely has its advantages, but arguably also its disadvantages (efficiently moving forward, being decisive, for example).
I personally welcome any initiative that adds more options to the table!
Oh, you mean me, here on Steem. A cursory examination of my wallet will reveal I am the poster boy for that financial harm.
As to whether centralized digital currency adds options to the table or not, I reckon that is self evident. China is not going to promote decentralization, and neither is Zuckerborg. Any initiative that poses as an alternative to central banks but actually centralizes control - and establishes greater financial control, as DLTs do - is contrary to the freedom BTC was claimed to offer. These currencies are wolves in sheep's fleece.