Yeah, we don't disagree.

"and if this isn't merely an artifact of transition but a durable paradigm shift, it's a dramatic increase in decentralization of stake, which will affect governance"

It was just that sentence and the graphic coming with it that I didn't concur with. For me, even if it's a durable shift, it will only have a feeble impact on decentralization. I don't know the statistics but I feel like most stake around here was either : bought, obtained through curation rewards thanks to a big Steemit Inc. delegation or another kind of monopoly/favouristism/nepotism or ninja-mined. Not obtained through post rewards.

So yeah, a better distribution of rewards will have a little effect on decentralization of governance, but I think it's marginal. And considering that since the EIP, the more stake you have the more you win (through the new curve), in fact a better median reward doesn't necessarily mean the rewards are better distributed. If current users win more but the top 1%'s rewards increase more than that increase of the median, we're going towards more centralization and not less.

That's our only disagreement. Essentially, I'm just a bit more pessimistic about that potential shift to a better rewards distribution and its potential effect on decentralization.