There are of course many ways that authority can then divvy up the funds it controls. There is indeed the potential for a much wider distribution than Bitcoin's coinbase initially reached. But history is rife with examples of why it's generally a bad idea to trust an authority to complete tasks that benefit the greater good, especially if they necessarily diminish that authority's power at the same time. Typically centers of power like to consolidate it instead. There are exceptions, like the GPL tricking copyright law into kicking its own ass, but until I see a comparable level of cleverness in how Ripple or Freicoin dole out their tokens I'll view them with skepticism. (Though I'll certainly play with them.)
Actually the bold statement is exactly what Freicoin has accomplished -- the "centralized" fund is also subject to demurrage and will be sent to the miners of Freicoin at the rate of 5% per year. This is built into the protocol so there is little incentive to hold onto these funds forever.
That's a good point that I overlooked. But the Foundation is tasked with more than just bootstrapping, and I assume it will continue to exist even after that single task is complete. What part of your budget will be earmarked for expenses associated with keeping the Foundation afloat? Will you give to groups that want to take the currency in a direction that goes against your charter?
What if the biggest Freicoin pool operators who together control a supermajority of mining resources become Foundation members? How would you even know?
The whole reason of starting decentralized is that you can do an end run around these questions. You seem to think the costs there outweigh the benefits, and that's fine, but it means you must find an alternative mechanism of equitably distributing coins, and "give coins to group that distributes coins" isn't sufficiently worked out to qualify as a mechanism. That's also fine, but until you get a working mechanism don't refer to your currency as decentralized or anything approaching it.