Great post and I would like to make the following simple explanation of how I view things:
1) The Free Market is Ultimate Decentralization
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
3) Those who gave to AGS trusted our team. These funds are not community property to be voted on... the vote was in giving us the money up front. It was a vote of confidence in us, and not in any particular idea. If we were to defer our judgment to the crowd then we would be shirking our responsibility to make judgments.
Because AGS and PTS is not the only way to compete in this market and there are many other teams out there for people to fund: ethereum, Nxt, Ripple, Bitcoin Foundation, Barwizi, etc there is no reason to allocate our funds by voting. As I have stated clearly many places in the forum, I do not believe that voting is a fair way to allocate capital. I am also against the idea of shared funds in general because it destroys the property rights of minority share holders.
So the proper way to view decentralization is to look at the market as a whole. Any reasonable DAC idea must convince the market to succeed and attempts to substitute convincing the market with convincing Invictus or even a majority of AGS shareholders is to take shortcuts that will undermine the necessary due diligence of the market.
For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC. They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know? Why should I fund any DAC that I believe is inferior to ones I have in my queue?