If luckyshares were a currency, decentralization would be important but here I do not think it is.
It is more important to make sure the shares find their way into the hands of those who will most and best evangelize the DAC, so you actually don't want a 100% "fair" distribution. You want a distribution that rewards people who are likely to work for the system.
Actually, it isn't about distribution at all. A DAC wants to distribute as few shares as possible while maximizing the value it receives for the shares it does distribute. So the value a DAC receives for distributing its shares include:
1) Validation and Securing of its Transaction Log
2) Marketing, Promotion, and Advertising
3) Incentivize investment in the ecosystem.
4) Avoiding control of any one individual.
5) Growing the community of interested individuals.
Fairness is only relevant from a marketing perspective. If you want what I believe is 'fair', then Invictus should have sold 100% of all shares and then paid to secure the network on our own. Despite being the most 'fair', it is not the best marketing and would not achieve other goals. These 5 principles must be balanced and maximized by the design.
So Lucky Mining:
Adds Marketing / Promotion / Advertising
Adds more Validation nodes and Hash Security at a fraction of the cost.
Lowers margins on Centralized Hashing Operations and thus decentralizes control
Grows the community of interested individuals from those just looking for a predictable ROI to those interested in hope.
It comes at the cost that some people may not consider it 'fair'. The point is Lucky Mining actually results in Less Issuance of new currency and thus lower inflation and higher security. Therefore, it makes the coin more valuable to all shareholders.
Something like LukcyShares would be dubious to operate as a centralized service so decentralization is VERY important.