Start with the question that polite discussion usually avoids.
If a protocol cannot be changed by its creator, by me, by you, or by anyone else, then who is threatened by it?
If VSP provides fixed rules upon which anyone may build, transact and compete without seeking permission, then opposition to it is not merely technical. It is institutional.
Who benefits from mutable rules?
Who profits from remaining the indispensable middleman?
Who prefers a system in which developers, custodians, exchanges, committees and fashionable little priesthoods can decide what users may do next?
The existing order is sustained by people whose power depends upon uncertainty, permission and intervention. Fixed rules are dangerous to them because fixed rules prevent them from selling influence over tomorrow.
That is the real meaning of decentralisation.
It is not running a home node and congratulating oneself for possessing a copy of the ledger. A spectator does not become sovereign merely by owning binoculars.
Decentralisation means being able to build, transact, innovate and compete without answering to a committee, a maintainer, a corporation or a self-appointed guardian of the protocol.
It means no one can rewrite the rules to favour friends, punish rivals or preserve an obsolete business model.
A system is not decentralised because everyone may watch.
It is decentralised because no one may command.