Well, it was "better" on every axis except one -- it was centralized. But anyone could be an issuer of a currency, on his own infrastructure (potentially run by third parties), so while each currency was centralized, you could have an arbitrary number of currencies, and meta-currencies (e.g. a "this is a basket of all USD IOUs from US Fortune 500 companies"). There was no inherently centralized point; open source software, a bunch of loosely connected servers, and using realtime markets for the decentralization.

Being decentralized is a huge advantage for Bitcoin in a lot of scenarios, but where being decentralized doesn't help, Bitcoin has a lot of baggage, is slow, inefficient, not inherently cryptographically secure (i.e. the safety comes from size of network, not for the first participant based on the strength of a public key algorithm). So, IMO, in the ideal world we'll have both something like Bitcoin for when decentralized single currencies are needed, and a bunch of centralized currencies for other purposes.

The closest thing active right now is Chris Odom ("Fellow Traveller")'s Open Transactions (http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page)

I think they have a commercial company in this area: http://monetas.net/ but I know basically nothing about it.