I'm not sure that there is an altcoin more decentralized than bitcoin at this point, but I agree with the sentiment of this article.  Most alts don't have anywhere near the number of users and nodes, miners, etc.  But it's definitely important to have all of these alternatives.  In this sense, all of crypto is decentralized relative to the centralization of the state.  If bitcoin fails, then an alt will take over and become dominant.  My worry at this point is that bitcoin has to some extent already been taken over by banking interests.  Obviously they don't have complete control, but it seems to me that their resistance to block size increases seems to be about something a bit more than worries about forking and bugs.  However, we also know that Blockstream isn't in lockstep with banking interests either.  They will prove who they are when they implement privacy tech.  If not, the bankers have succeeded in buying their influence into Blockstream.

I've been listening to people like @tonevays mostly for technical analysis.  I do think that they have the best team and scaling is a real problem, yet BCH pulled it off (for now).  We may find out in the future that BCH will become too centralized.  Time will tell.  Practically all systems start out decentralized and centralize over time.  The question is whether it is decentralized enough.  If the state can shut down any of these, that means they've become a centralized target.

Likewise we'll eventually see the results of the lightning network.  If it fails, several of the alts are sure to take over and will probably benefit from increased numbers of developers.  Thanks for this well considered and thoughtful article.