Yes — that ‘centralized trust’ issue is explained in various places within the article…see excerpt below..it elaborates the statement that you highlighted..
“‘However, there is no guarantee, except the one that you provide, that the data wasn’t tampered with, either while storing it or while transmitting it (to your browser, for example). There is also no easy visibility into the entire audit trail of that data (maybe for DBAs, but potentially not for public consumption).”
Keep in mind that decentralizing trust isn’t always a good thing. Most crypto users still trust CoinBase to store their wallets — and eschew the entire ‘decentralized wallet, be my own bank’ business. Banks do provide valuable services as an intermediary, which includes fraud prevention, account unlocking, password retrieval etc. Even the most decentralized projects, currently utilize some level of centralization. Ripple, Stellar and even EOS to some extent with it’s 21 delegates leans towards some centralization.
Fully decentralized trust is a problem that hasn’t really been solved; AI offers some hope, but is still some ways off. PoW (used by Bitcoin) is the only fully Sybil resistant solution that scales. Which means, most altcoins (not based on bitcoin) are not able to provide the 100% trustworthiness of transactions that occur on their altchain. They are subject to Sybil attacks and have to work really hard to prevent the same.
Thanks for your comment.