Read for your self:
I guess they really have no idea about what we are trying to achieve here:
They have a few valid arguments.
You can quote me on this...With Proof of Stake if we don't change the distribution mechanism then it really does reward rich players. It's a Pay-to-Win game.
I don't think it's fair to the majority of the possible players to deliberately design it to be Pay-to-Win because then the game becomes less fun. When the game becomes less fun then less people play. So if you want only rich people to play then you keep it set up the way it is now until it centralizes around the wealthiest.
I'm going to be honest, it might actually be better for us in the short time if it's a Pay-to-Win game. It could make some of us filthy rich as the price of the shares skyrocket while millionaires buy them up. In the long term though the level of user adoption will suffer because no one outside of the "first world" will even be able to play and within the first world eventually the people who we really want to play will say it's too expensive.
They also have a strong point to make that it will not remain decentralized if it remains Pay-to-Win. Under Pay-to-Win who do you think the top players will eventually be? Someone who already won in another game can keep paying for wins in every future iteration of a game.
This would be fine if these people came from the Bitshares community and helped launch the industry but if they are people from another community or let's say they are a traditional bank then would you be happy with them doing the 1% attack and grabbing all the equity? If that happens what will the ultimate result be? It will be centralization of wealth in the hands of possibly the very same banking elite that this community in particular complains about.
To keep that from happening you need to move away from the Pay-to-Win model of Proof of Stake. Democratic models are better and DPoS is better. We could fix this bug by simply adding randomness to the selection of the delegates (not in this chain but in some of the future chains). Adding this randomness will shuffle the deck a little bit and then we can say that we care about decentralization.
I know Democracy is a loaded word around here but no matter what words I use to express these concepts the trend is clear. Players do not like Pay-to-Win because it's not viewed as fair and hence not fun.