It depends on what sort of decentralization we are talking about. Bitcoin businesses need a PREDICTABLE scaling solution to build their business models around.  Trusting Core to fill the need when the time comes is not decentralized at all. Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.

There is a real need for bigger blocks if we want to use the Blockchain for anything more than a settlement ledger. Core only wants monetary writing to the chain. This is a waste of a precious resource that could be the greatest tool for freedom since the Internet itself.

What about mining centralization? That is the problem that nobody but me is talking about and it means Bitcoin is not censorship resistant to the ChiComs.

If there were businesses running bitcoin blockchain based stock exchanges, bond exchanges, currency exchanges, any equity, really, then those companies would have nodes. Anyone who's business involved writing to an immutable ledger would have a node. Bigger blocks mean more nodes.

Right now the only companies with the incentive to run nodes are onramps like Coinbase and Circle.  One of the Largest, Bitpay, will go out of business or switch to LN and won't run nodes anymore because any transaction under $10 will eventually be too expensive to process if the blocksize isn't allowed to scale. Bitpay sponsored a bowl game and brought Bitcoin awareness to millions. That's the kind of company  smallblockers want to drive out of business?