Wouldn't people just set up multiple deposit privkeys?  You don't need to reinvent the wheel on PoW in order to make this coin a success.

I would think that any kind of PoW algorithm would eventually tend towards centralization; the only thing that you can really do is pick a more obscure algorithm so that the current farms can't use their ASICs to mine it, then maybe introduce changes to the algorithm via consensus to stay 1 step ahead of newly developed ASICs.

Does the 2 year vesting period include all of the currencies, or just the diluents? (i.e. everything or just AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE)

If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

I did a thing:

The strategy we use is called "piggybacking". That means we try to identify a market of early adopters that need the product/service right now and focus on catering to them. If the product "catches" and successfully establishes a solid niche userbase, it will organically spread to other areas (think vertical growth vs. horizontal growth). The niche we originally focused on acts as an advertisement for the utility of the product, allowing it to grow horizontally and eventually it reaches a mainstream audience all on its own.

If I've been understanding the marketing talk correctly, I think that the niche that the team is pursuing is the people who are interested in getting into the cryptocurrency market but want to be able to protect themselves against volatility.  That's why I'm assuming they're focused on marketing bitUSD rather than directly marketing BTSX.

Is there a Plan B?   And im hoping you guys are not going all in with this plan.

He said that they are working with multiple other entities to secure a pathway to be able to buy bitUSD directly as well as to sell bitUSD for fiat; all the eggs are not in one basket.

I don't think btsx is a Decentralized Autonomous Anything (DAA) at the moment. btsx is centralized at the moment and the rules are being changed all the time. Right now I would consider btsx to be in an open beta phase so rules and other things can be change. But when it is finally finished it will be a DAC. All the rules will be final and the cap will be unchangeable.

How is it centralized?  In order for the official chain to fork, there has to be a majority of people voting for delegates which agree to fork.  If delegates do not agree to the fork, they can say so and people can vote for them.  Sure, anybody can change the ruleset for the currency, but it is up to the delegates to implement the change.

While useful as consensus mechanism for a DAC this thread has revealed that DPOS may be flawed for a crypto-currency use case. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0

DPOS would allow users to come to a consensus about changing the rules on which the crypto-currency itself was founded.

This isn't any different from other blockchains.  If it's POW, then a group of miners could reach a consensus and fork the chain with a new rule.  If it's POS, then a group of coinholders could do the same.  It's impossible for any kind of a monetary system to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority," but that's part of what gives currency value - because by using the system you are giving up your right to make the monetary policy whatever you want it to be.

I suppose that you could have a different cryptocurrency for each person in existence, each with its own policies according to the preferences of its creator; however, that fundamentally defeats the purpose of what currency is supposed to be: A social contract by which people transmit value.