...
The main problem is that dash didn't adequately prepare for a decentralized launch. many months to years to slowly allow people to accumulate coins to assure the distribution was as fairly distributed as possible--add to that an emissions cut and dash (intentionally or not) made the worst case for a large distribution pool.
Not to detract from the countless answers you've already received on that point, prove it. C'mon, evidence, not conjecture. Prove to me that any individual has a sizeable percentage of all the Dash in existence and the point is yours, fail to prove it and that point I made on certain acts between yourself and icebreaker are just as accurate as any allegation you can make.
Cold, hard fact: No coin has a fair launch. Unless every individual on the planet is given an equal share it'll be unfair. From another direction, practically every coin is worthless at launch so everyone has an equal share, nothing. They gain value for many reasons including one you're intimately familiar with, FUD, but when it comes to another you seem to have a blind spot that causes you a certain amount of butthurt, merit.
All cryptosystems force you to bet on which has the best distribution, but the one that employs a slower emissions over the longer period of time has the better odds of being the most decentralized.
The problem for dash is that dash has one of the fastest emissions over the shortest period (2 million of 18.9 million in 2 days), so it makes a terrible case for being decentralized.