Agreed that ASICs suck. They centralize and suck value from coins. I don't believe in equality (regarding income inequality debates) but believe in equal opportunity and not everyone has access to ASICs. (To be overly frank, if you're not sucking Chinese dick you're not getting a good deal on an ASIC in the current market.)
ASICs don't centralize or suck value... the people who use them do that. And frankly, when a new coin comes on the market... what do all those GPU miners do? They centralize in pools and mine quickly... then sell off their earnings. None of those actions can be seen as altruistic on the part of GPU miners.
In addition to ZEN the same crisis is being faced by Ethereum and Decred who have recently succumb to ASICs, pushing out GPU miners. I think a solid argument can be made that individuals being able to participate in mining adds value to projects from levels ranging from a gamer mining with a single GPU to larger home miners with 250+ GPUs.
So what's the difference between a hobby miner with one ASIC and a "pro" with 250+ ASICs... and your one GPU gamer and "large" home miner with 250+ GPUs?
I think there is a contradiction between your stance that ASICs "centralize" coins when you accept that 250+ GPU "home miners" are ok. That many GPUs is a business, not a hobby.
I'd like to invite everyone to perform a thought experiment and ask themselves if Bitcoin (the coin with the first mover advantage) would be any different had they chosen to fork off ASICs. The answer to what the ZEN team should do probably lies at the end of this discussion.
In what way did ASICs coming to bitcoin hurt the value or usability of the coin?