In our daily work, most of our country or our company exists in the form of centralized governance. But it is completely different in the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin does not have a centralized organization to manage the entire ecology, but exists in the form of a community. In this community, there are different stakeholders. There is a core developer group, a miner group, a Bitcoin whale holder group, and a Bitcoin retail holder group. There is no centralized organization to manage these stakeholders, but everyone uniformly abides by the consensus mechanism of the Bitcoin community and spontaneously participates in the construction of the Bitcoin community. No single individual or collective can fully control Bitcoin. If someone wants to upgrade the Bitcoin network, they need to get the consensus of different stakeholders in the community. If there is no consensus, it is easy to cause the division of the community. This is the decentralization of community governance.
In regards to 6, you think it's going to be truely decentralized if you have only those you listed as "Stakeholders" governing the entire community? Wish you used
etc after "Bitcoin retail holder group" , so people don't assume that's the amount of "stakeholders" that will govern the entire Bitcoin Community, or people assuming if they don't belong to any of the groups they can't participate in governance whether they are qualified or not. I believe every honest participants should be able to participate in governance so we don't place too much barrier and risk centralizing governance. You can't use merit/reputation system for quality control
Besides, the "groups should be made mainly of independent participants else we could have issues of collusion, centralized groups, or group managed by single entity due to mostly to not adhering to the important
Bitcoin Principles