When building a decentralized protocol, there are three primary design choices for the creators to consider:
How does power get distributed within the network?
How is consensus achieved in the network?
How do changes to the protocol get implemented?
Satoshi's approach to decentralization
Bitcoin is the most decentralized protocol that's been created to date. Power (via tokens) was distributed by Satoshi publishing a white paper, releasing software and allowing anyone to mine at the onset with complete transparency of the rules. Consensus is achieved by anyone running the software and expending electricity. And protocol changes are deliberately made and require consensus from the core devs. This approach maximizes security (there's no central points of failure or major security bugs) at the expense of speed of iteration and innovation.
Vitalik and 
's approach to decentralization
Some in the Bitcoin world argue that anything less decentralized than Bitcoin is not decentralized and as a result doomed for failure. They're missing the fact that decentralization is not binary. While protocols like Ethereum and Steem are not as decentralized as Bitcoin, they are more decentralized than the existing systems they are disrupting and they have the potential to grow more decentralized as they mature.
Decisions about decentralization require one to evaluate the tradeoff between security robustness and speed of iteration. I believe there is a strong reason for both ends of the spectrum to exist: fast interation at the expense of security (Ethereum, Steem) and aversion to change with the benefits of security (Bitcoin).
I'm not sure Ethereum or Steem got the tradeoff right; it's possible that they sway too far on the side of centralization and something will come after that gets it right. But I'm glad they're trying.
