Both these goals seem to have failed in practice, the latter spectacularly (although other cryptocurrencies have done better in this regard).
To truly be trustless, you can't generate keys/addresses on some website like bitaddress or use some other online wallet, as you're clearly trusting bitaddress to not be copying your key (and/or have the ability to fully and carefully audit their code... few people have this capability and even fewer have the patience to do so). You have to do something like this: generate them offline using a computer which can never communicate with the Internet after you use it. And you need to do it at least twice with two completely different implementations to ensure your public and private key truly match.
In practicality, I have to send a picture of my ID to some third party exchange in order to use it. REALLY? Why don't I just use PayPal?
In practicality, Bitcoin is only /ritually/ trustless and decentralized. And it's worthless for microtransactions. (Etherium is better, but not perfect.)
I really do think the whole industry has become too enamored with the cloud and with centralization, but these steps toward decentralization seem self-defeating as they rely on (centralized!) apps from a centralized appstore in practice. Might as well trust PayPal or Apple or whoever. Or even just a regular bank. Or even better, a credit union that you, as an account holder, have voting power over.
If I'm using Windows, I trust Microsoft. If I'm using Ubuntu, I trust Canonical. If I use Android or Chrome, I trust Google. If I use iOS, I trust Apple. On some level, I also trust Intel and/or AMD and/or NVidia and my chipset provider, too. Trustlessness only exists in theory (and even then, only with certain assumptions--like a distributed mining pool or stake that hasn't become centralized), and you can make a good case that in practicality cryptocurrencies actually INCREASE your trust attack surface area.
It all starts looking like a lot of overhead for transactions.