I think this premise is silly overall, not the least because these ICOs still amount in total to about as much as Ned and Dan hold of Steem. Neither situation should be an issue for the respective ecossytems. The OPEC comparison is lunatic -- OPEC is much more comparable to Chinese POW miners -- a cartel with a unique geographical endowment of advantages in the production of a commodity.

1. These "centralized" ICO owners of ETH are themselves not centralized, so it's a strange thing to even care about. They are not coordinated, they are not a monolith, some -- like EOS and Tezos -- are likely adversarial with the rest.

2. Beyond that, these ICOs also sell down their ETH over time in small pieces --> they don't just hold forever. So this article misunderstands that ETH in these ICO usecases is being used as a currency and as a fundraising rail. Ownership of currency swishes around and changes hands as its used.

If centralization of ownership of a currency's concern, your focus should be to examine the stagnant unused small cryptocoins that get very very centralized as only a few insiders care and typically build and hold giant positions. You see this in Dash, in Litecoin. I mean 1 holder in Bitcoin holds 5% or more and it's never been a problem. Dan and Ned hold close to 1% of Steem -- it's not a problem.

This is pretty close to Concern trolling/FUD...