You make valid points. I said the reason Bitcoin would survive is not because of the tech, but because of the name.
5 or so people control the github; you can't say it can never be changed, look at segwit. Ya, we had a fork with BCH. However, the main bitcoin brand name was radically changed. Segwit was about as big of a change as ETH moving from PoW to POS, obv not as big, but segwit fundamentally changed how bitcoin works.
You could have said the same thing five years ago about bitcoin when no one thought LN would be a thing. Remember, there was a WP that was "Set in stone" for BTC. BTC is not the same protocol as the WP describes.
With all that said, it gets talked about by presidents and celebs alike; you can't just manufacture that, no matter how much money you have. There are a lot of things about bitcoin that make it a useful tool for flight to the capital. And it's the ability to be liquid enough for countries to move funds around with, gives it speculate value as a "fire escape." But, as we move into the future and security is a given like air, it will be interesting to see how bitcoin evolves. I would argue DPOS has more decentralization the PoW + Small GitHub with devs that are not accountable to anyone via stake, except the other members. If bitcoin was DPOS, segwit MIGHT have never even been passed; it centrality hasn't helped with fees that much, I spent 6$ during that run to 10k earlier this year and funds didnt arrive for over 24 hours.