I searched for this topic but couldn't find anything related on google nor on the forums.

There are two problems with anti-ASIC hard forks.  The first is with ASIC resistance itself; in recent work actually analyzing the dollar cost to attack both Ethereum and Bitcoin, it’s quite apparent that ASICs are actually a good thing for the security of a cryptocurrency system (extended abstract / full paper).  General purpose computer-secured systems are quite cheaper to attack than specialized systems, as general purpose hardware can be rented and resold after an attack to substantially subsidize attack cost.  Worse still, an attacker can use general purpose hardware advantages to overwhelm any cryptocurrency seeking to avoid specialization by carrying attacks across PoW changing / defensive forks, a feature which is not possible with ASICs, where the community has a “nuclear option” available to disable miners at any time if objectively malicious behavior is detected.  These two factors combined severely cripple the economic security of networks secured by general purpose hardware.

The second problem with anti-ASIC hard forks is in the culture established itself; discouraging capital investment in the short term, and a governance process of repeated change create potent vectors for disruption, attack, and takeover, without accomplishing the stated goals of preserving decentralization in the long term.  In my opinion this will eventually lead to more centralization, as only the most sophisticated and dedicated companies are able to ride the waves of change and extract profits at scale.