It's hard to take your post seriously when your entire account is devoted to shilling for NXT and fanatical stalking of Bitshares devs.  Anyone that read the original post can tell that instead of improving upon PoW, standard proof of stake brings in so many new problems and dead ends, you would probably be better off using Bitcoin, fiat notes, or bartering with random objects from your house instead.  If you're going to claim DPoS can't work while shilling for NXT, you're at least obligated to explain how the mess of a system known as standard proof of stake outlined in the original post is supposed to function on a globale scale.  I just don't see it working at all.

Having said that, most people know that Bitshares is going to have elements of the Roman senate, maybe people will even stab or murder each other eventually.  It will be great for Coindesk news.  It's also going to have elements of corporate fascism, as corporate entites attempt to gain control of a disproportionate number of nodes.  If the ownership of publicly operated delegates seems fishy to you, you can simply stop using the system.  If they're operating nodes on the system, they probably have assets on the system, and will most likely be hurting themselves doing this.  

This is like if you see two Bitcoin PoW pools in China that combine to make up 70% of the hash rate but are owned by the same guy or brothers, you might stop using BTC.  The Satoshi system is obviously not sybil resistant in this case.  The incentives to not do this are basically the same in both systems, but it can still happen.   There will always be politics you can't escape from in the real world that you have to audit yourself.

The purpose of DPoS is kind of to engineer the way these systems play out from start to finish in a defined manner where the likelihood of things like sybil are minimized, or force them to be visible for you to audit.  If you're uncomfortable with the delegate ownership or coin ownership, you should simply not use the platform.  It's no different than manually measuring the different real world metrics of Bitcoin like hash rate to see if it's distributed.  Also like having to manually audit standard proof of stake wealth to figure out if one guy owns 90% of coins, except he could have them in separate accounts, so it's not even possible to do.  Woops, sybil attacked again on 3 different consensus mechanisms.  At least on both DPoS and PoW you had a chance of manually auditing it yourself to find out and prevent it.

Let's take this to the real end game though.  What happens if Bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency?  Do you really believe each nation that already has treaties with each other is going to sit there blowing megatons of coal, hashing away for no reason with basically the only benefit being the preventionion of keynesianism?  At this point, they would all just integrate into a delegate system like DPoS organically.  Things like DPoS are designed to go global, the others are not.

PoW is dead on so many levels it's not even funny, unless you see cryptocurrency always maintaining a tiny market cap and powering things like the Silk Road.  Standard proof of stake is far more sketchy than DPoS, so this leaves you with very limited currently existing options.