For me all staking consensus are centraized= you vote some representatives, but there are only few representatives in most cases.
PoW may be somewhat decentralized, but it's not equally fair. We've seen how Bitmain dominates most of Bitcoin's hashrate on the network. This could be extremely risky for the longevity of the cryptocurrency in general. On the other hand, this prevents small miners from supporting the Blockchain (as big miners reap the rewards). A solution for this would be the distribution of the mining hashrate among different miners worldwide.
As for staking consensus which requires voters to choose some representatives or delegates, I don't find it quite decentralized at all. It's rather centralized where only a select number of people are able to dictate the rules of the network. EOS and Steem rely only on 21 delegates for consensus which have their centralization risks. If we were to compare different DPoS cryptocurrencies, then Lisk seems to be the most decentralized as it relies on 101 delegates for consensus.
Still though, nothing is perfect and based on the facts, one could say that 100% decentralization is impossible to achieve. Every consensus algorithm has their respective advantages/disadvantages. But, I believe that PoW will always be in the lead since it's being actively used by the world's most popular cryptocurrency (Bitcoin).
Nonetheless, I look forward for Ethereum's implementation of ProgPoW which seems to be far more decentralized than the current PoW consensus algorithm used by Bitcoin and other altcoins. Just my opinion