If it's on Ethereum, it's not decentralised. Their state is mutable -- as per the DAO.
The chain still includes the transaction history of what happened with the DAO, but the hard fork added a special case unique state change which undoes most of the effects of the transactions that happened with the DAO.
So, the transactions still are recorded as having happened, but the state was edited?
Not that that necessarily is a particularly important distinction, but I think it is one that can reasonably be made.
You can't just throw out or dismiss the historical failures of the model because it doesn't fit the ongoing narrative. The DAO was a glimpse at how easy the theory is corrupted, whether it started for the right reasons or not.
Ethereum -> ETC.
New Coin -> Ethereum.
The market said New Coin a.k.a. Ethereum is worth more. But who cares about fiat, eh?
'I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men'.
If more professional investors get involved, that would likely change some.
You didn't mention it not being a blockchain. Words matter.
I think the fork was a mistake as well, but that doesn't make something centralized.