You didn't answer these questions:
1 - How is DPoS an "improved" version of PoS seeing that it is clearly a more centralized consensus mechanism?
2 - How does Bitshares rationalize that it is "decentralized" when it is susceptible to and
previously undergone a Sybil attack, where actually, Bytemaster voted ONE person into FIVE delegate positions?
Someone having multiple delegate positions is not an attack. It increases centralisation so is best avoided, but is not an attack. Would you consider the moment gigahash.io briefly had over 51% of the hashpower on bitcoin an attack even though they didn't actually attack? Having 5 delegates is no where near enough to even potentially attack the network so please refrain from making wild exaggerations.
The truth of the matter is that no one can be sure that he only controlled those five delegates. He could very well still control multiple delegates. As Stan Larimer says, If multiple delegates being controlled by one individual isn't an issue, then why is