Proof of work distribution is the only provable and trustless form of distribution.
I suspected that you still believed in that fallacy but didn't want to call you out on it until I was sure.
An ICO where the funds donated remain locked until the crowdfunding is over is also provably fair distribution.
Trading ones stake for money on an open exchange is also provably fair distribution.
Creating new stake (inflation/dilution/capital infusion) and giving it to certain individuals that the stakeholders have come to a majority consensus about is also a distribution method that is transparent, provable, and I would even argue fair (although some may complain about the tyranny of the majority).
Regarding the ICO method, the BitShares AGS campaign had a slight flaw because the BTC/PTS received could have been recycled back into the ICO to dilute other people of their stake. But I don't think anyone actually believes that I3 did such a thing. Going forward it would be more ideal for the sake of transparency to have a well publicized ICO that has a much shorter period so that the organization receiving the money can wait until it is done before touching the funds.
Also, an ICO has far more benefits than POW for distribution. The money that was being spent on wasteful electricity and buying useless space heaters called ASICs is instead given to the people who can make the vision that people donated money for more likely to be successful.
Besides, your proposal to take PTS and put it on DPOS gets rid of POW distribution. So what, POW was a good form of distribution for a year, but now screw it, let's now lock in the stake and make it deflationary? By doing that aren't you admitting that trading stake for money is
also a great and fair form of distribution of stake?
This is one of the failings of Nxt.
The criticism with NXT is that too few founding individuals got too high of a percentage of the initial stake (BTW I don't necessary agree or disagree with that criticism against NXT). That line of argument could potentially be valid since it is regarding the decentralization of decision making power for the DAC. I3 only has about 5% stake in BTS, which is too small to allow them to be dictators acting against the wishes of all other stakeholders.