The statement above is ironic to me because if you consider DPoS not decentralized, that would mean you also consider PoW and PoS not decentralized, meaning Emunie would be the only decentralized system.  Why do I say this?  All you need to do is compare the three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS (Bitshares)

For standard proof of stake, the end game stake scenario results in people having to pool or lease their stake, otherwise there's no point to stake at all.  They're delegating their vote power to determine the longest chain to the pool owner.  The act of doing so results in two things.  First, you've recreated the centralization of PoW pool mining, where most of the blocks are being validated by a handful of people and one out of million being done by some random guy.  Secondly, you've also recreated DPoS, just a less efficient, less decentralized way of doing so.  Most blocks being signed by a few pools vs larger number of block validators in DPoS.

For PoW it's obviously the same thing, delegating your mining power to a pool owner, then like 3 pool guys sign all blocks.  I tend to agree with the following PDF, that actual decentralized currency systems you upload and they run like a virus forever without intervention or attendance aren't possible:

Decentralised Currencies Are Probably Impossible But Let’s At Least Make Them Efficient

http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf

Due to this, I'm very skeptical of the Fuserleer system functioning without black swan events that just blow it up with no way to recover.  It doesn't seem like you can get rid of the human element, whether that involves switching pools to avoid bad actors, or voting, or whatever.  These acts are fault recovery methods.  What is Emunie's fault recovery method?  Fuserleer changing name and skipping town if it crashes?  The act of software updating a partitioned system also seems sketchy to me.