First, I have little interest in debating the finer points of decentralization as an initiative, nor laboring to defend my interpretations of it. This is mostly because it's all moot. People are working on decentralization, and it will either be useful or it won't. I'm okay with either outcome.

Second, while I didn't do a good job separating out the concepts, it was a rant after all, there were distinct concepts being described. For example, I don't think decentralization is particularly useful for stock exchanges, but I do think it has its uses. So yes, "vetting and auditing process has nothing to do with on what system the shares are traded". That was implied within my arguments.

Third, the scope of me saying "Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization" was intentional. Token decentralization is not enough. You call this notion childish, but I have serious concerns about Bitcoin not being up to the task of sufficiently defending itself from mining centralization and luring people into a false sense of security. Bitcoin is not untouchable, but it may become so.

Fourth, while I understand that breaking a thing into pieces does, in a literal sense, decentralize it, it does not do so in the way most forumites and reddites perceive it to when it comes to stock exchanges. What they are looking for is not protection from government shutdown, that has yet to even affect them. They are looking for a safe haven to gamble away their bitcoins attempting to make money by mistake, because it's easier and more entertaining than learning how to earn more responsibly, while not having to worry about the issuer or exchange scamming them. Again, this is a trust issue (with vetting/auditing falling into the same category), not a centralization one.

This leads me to...

Fifth, I wholeheartedly disagree with your estimation of the crowd's comprehension of the things they support. Maybe I'm just jaded, but that's what I observe. This crowd exhibits swarm behavior, is anti-intellectual, and hostile toward any disruption on sight.

Sixth, your response to me wondering why people aren't working on a decentralized WoT is system amounts to, "because they don't know how". Well, that's my point too, no? Of course, we're both being a little silly by assigning a "they" and then assuming it does what we "think" is "best".

Finally, I do appreciate your notion of design through iteration in regards to all these things evolving over time. We all get so excited and start pathing through our brains to possible futures, that we forget humans have to actually sit down and make this stuff, and that won't come without errors and iterations. People better keep that in mind about Bitcoin as the choice protocol too.