I think this shows two different things. To the common person it may appear that DPoS is broken. After all you can look at this along with a number of other examples in other DPoS communities to find even more examples.
I also think it shows something different to people who are deeper in the space. These people don't see this as a failure of DPoS but rather of centralization. After all anyone with power will always stand the potential to be corrupted. If no one has the power to come together then you have a stalemate.
I tend to fall in the second group more than the first for determining a network functions. If a community has enough members willing to put value into it and it doesn't start from a flop-sided stake level then I think that you don't have most of these problems. That being said the potential is still there so there's always a chance of power moves.
That chance is why I still believe the only digital store of value at this time is still Bitcoin. It's the only distributed network, that I've seen, that actively pushes all stakeholders to engage in a hivemind. That doesn't mean I don't value DPoS networks but certainly don't see them as the level of asset security provided by Bitcoin.
Yeah, uniting to combat a centralized stake can work, but organizing is often lacking.
I agree on Bitcoin and pow vs dpos for security of assets. Thanks for the feedback.