Vitalik might agree:

https://btcmanager.com/vitalik-buterin-speaks-out-against-raiden-ico-donates-advisor-proceeds-to-charity/

IMO, Dan will never create anything truly decentralized (well anything is possible, but I am talking about not winning the lottery odds). Because up to this point, all of his designs have been Rube Goldberg obfuscations. Even the pegging of BitAssets is not viable. Pegs can never be maintained (this can be proven mathematically) and they require centralization to hold up for the limited time until they ultimately fail. I can not find anything he has ever designed that had any prayer of actually being decentralized. It is all adhoc (not researched) bullshit.

As far as I can tell (after watching numerous videos, interacting with him on these forums in 2013, and observing his designs hence), Dan is not a genius. He is a moderately intelligent aerospace engineer who switched over to computer programming. Evidently, he is in way over his head in terms of trying to solve the decentralization of the Byzantine Generals Problem. Have they hired any academics or researchers who are capable? Afaics, Ian Grigg is not an expert in Byzantine Fault Tolerant decentralization. I saw his presentation trying to justify the governance of DPoS.

EOS will scale transaction volume, but because it is controlled by an oligarchy of whales. And this is not resilient, trustless, permissionless, nor decentralized control. Thus it will never Internet scale, because it will fall to the political-economics of centralization and voting.

Vitalik is closer to a genius, and I am sure he is much smarter than Dan. Dan is pragmatic. Vitalik is idealistic and trying to find an algorithmic solution. It’s possible that Vitalik's idealism may end up causing Ethereum to fall behind in the race for transaction volume scaling. Dan’s pragmaticism is to go after transaction volume scaling pronto and disregard the idealism for a decentralized solution, and instead pretend DPoS is decentralized.

Any way, EOS and Ethereum are not the only horses in this race. Surprises are coming. There is already Cardano which was produced by academics. That is from Charles Hoskinson’s IOHK (the co-founder Dan kicked out of Bitshares and broke verbal contracts with). There is the RBB academic work out of Australia. And there are others coming up in 2018 as well.

Nobody is against Dan doing his thing and putting his hat into the ring. But the lying and bullying of respected experts is ridiculous. Dan participated in a technical discussion on Tendermint’s Github (and I heard PhDs participated), then he runs to his whale controlled circlejerk on Steemit to write some nonsense to his faithful n00b idiots like @chryspano. Ditto in the debate with Vitalik.

Instead Dan and Block.one are not driven by the goal of academic research and acknowledging all feedback and working for the best outcomes. Clearly instead they are motivated by money and money and money only. They will do anything and say anything to get money, even when by doing so they are suppressing the advancement of the science. I had the thought that maybe Dan became more insecure about sufficient funding after Bitshares exhausted their funds. Yet he claims they already have enough self-funding from their Steem premeditated, sneakyfastmine money grab.

And srsly, going for a $2 billion fundraising and lying to get there, is of course going to cause blowback as what you are seeing here now. If he was really serious about the work, he does not need $2 billion all at once. He could have held tokens and built up the project, then his tokens over time would be worth much more than $2 billion if he actually succeeded. But no, they want to do it some scammy way where they get all the ETH and they get the tokens also (by manipulating/gaming the token sale), and then advertising to grandmothers with billboards and taxi cab ads in New York.

What really set me off is when @chryspano seemed to think that Dan is superior to me in research and knowledge about decentralized ledgers. Even after I wrote a blog demonstrating he is mistaken, he refuses or is incapable of acknowledging reality.

It is not really a big deal to code up DPoS (yes of course any significant coding project requires effort and man-years). The more difficult challenge is finding the design that can actually remain decentralized.

Also the zero transaction fee design has tradeoffs. Do you see EOS being open in their prospectus about the tradeoffs? Or are they claiming that everyone else is incorrect and their solution is perfect!

Srsly going for a $2 billion token sale and not even having a quality white paper.