Believe it or not the following actually comes from a place of love for the BitShares and what it is trying to achieve. I'm also sure BM can probably describe succinctly why my paranoia is wrong but if I really don't like an idea, I come out strong. (I should also mention I did the same thing when AGS was announced which actually turned out to be great.)
While there's no doubt whatever BM & team's stake is, it's far too small relative to all the work they put in. However...
-BitSharesX is CPOS in practice not DPOS.
-BDNS's developers combo stake will probably make it CPOS in practice. (Majority of active voting stake.)
- The Music DAC proposal last week was originally CPOS I'm not sure what the final allocation will be.
BDNS already includes a measure that sets aside an unnecessary amount of shares for development.
(Merger deals can be discussed separately.) But at least that method limits the amount you can get diluted by CPOS.
However, the inflation described here enhances CPOS further. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.0
While you may be told inflation will decentralise the DAC by diluting the initial group. Rest assured if anything like CPOS is in place, the CPOS stake will not get diluted, yours will.
With CPOS + inflation, rather than leaving the company they built or doing a violent fork, the CPOS 'developer-combo' stake can dilute others down, often subtly if required, which will happen, especially if the DAC no longer needs to be decentralised. (This will still happen with some shares set aside initially but at least the potential dilution from 1 company is not unlimited.)
So are all the DACs really designed to be centralised and ultimately dilute the initial investors?
The Facebook dilution scene... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOMUe26X3mo