Decentralization vs Centralization: A Modern Example

The Drama Unfolds

The past several hours have been very interesting if you follow Steem or Justin Sun of TRON (TRX) on Twitter. Or any other crypto news outlet, for that matter. It's been a very interesting day, and the conversations surrounding the Steem community and blockchain. 

Here are some of the items for consideration:

1. Steem had an elected governance system, deemed "witnesses", that were voted in place to protect the interest of Steem as the community knew it.

2. After some movements by the elected body, Justin Sun, the new "owner" of Steem, decided he didn't like the direction that things were going, and implemented a takeover of the Steem blockchain in order to prevent the aforementioned movements from taking full effect.

3. The Steem community is QUITE divided on this. Some think Sun did the right things, as he "owns" the Steem right. Others think that the community members oen the blockchain, which is why there are duly elected leaders. 

This all seems to be quite the mess, and the argument is quite simple and straightforward. Is the decision of one person, although it's claimed to be in the best interest of the said blockchain, weighed more heavily than that of the community in a "decentralized" project? Or should the community be the deciding factor in a truly decentralized blockchain project?

I have heard the sentiment echoed recently that a fully decentralized project is downright scary, as very rarely can a large community by trusted to research and come to the table prepared to make decisions that could affect millions of users. This could potentially be disastrous. On the other hand, a project that is run or decided by what boils down to one person's whims cannot be thought of as anything near decentralized.

So, I pose this question: What is the best option, or is there a good in-between for these issues?