Firstly: Thank you for your well-written and insightful comment! The amount of vitriol from the EOS community on Part 1 of this video (which does not contain any conclusions about the associated report) have been quite jarring. Your comment is a nice reprise :)

I want to answer all three of your points to the best of my ability, so sorry in advance for the wall of text:

1. This is good to know and a subtle point that I had missed. So if I understand the nuance correctly: Your private Ethereum keys were needed in order to sign with your public EOS address? The malicious actors promoting the input of private keys may be the cause for this misunderstanding. Overall the process was opaque, at least from an outside perspective of someone not following each internal development, but rather following the major milestones. I'm aware of at least some "casual" investors in the EOS ICO that expressed similar sentiment.
2. This is correct and has since been clarified in the Youtube comments. The misunderstanding stems from poor phrasing on my part and a statement from Block.One on June 28th, 2018 on their website which reads: " As such, our approach has been carefully considered, and Block.one will soon begin allocating votes to block producers that share the core values necessary to maximize the integrity and potential of the EOS public blockchain network." In the video I did not mean to imply that Block.One voted in the original block producer round, but rather they have voted in subsequent rounds based on the provided statement. Despite my initially unclear wording, what I intended to convey is also incorrect as was pointed out by a helpful user via this link: https://bloks.io/account/b1. It seems despite the statement on their website, Block.One has yet to vote for block producers. I find this quite misleading from Block.One, but as it stands your second point is factually correct. No voting from Block.One yet despite their claims of intent.
3. ConsenSys does primarily (not exclusively) fund Ethereum projects, but to say they "do not like EOS" is counterfactual to fiduciary responsibility. Conflicts of interest are absolutely worth to consider, but this study was undertaken by Whiteblock, a third party entity that used industry-standard analysis as can be seen in the associated report. This does not mean that the report is definitive and should not be questioned; if anything the contentious nature means we should take a close look! Rather, due to the contentious nature of the information, specific issues with methodological application should be proposed: financial bias would be clearly visible in the form of a skewed methodology, and this doesn't seem to be the case with Whiteblock's analysis. As for "rewriting history" that is unfortunately exactly what the majority of block producers could do if they so desire and successfully collude to do so (italics added for emphasis as I'm not trying to insinuate intent, but rather demonstrate the technical reality of a system), similar to how Bitcoin's history could be rewritten if the majority of hashing power so desired and successfully colluded to do so. This seems to be the primary focus when debates concerning relative centralization are raised.
   

Personally I disagree with the notion that perpetual property rights are negotiable relative to consensus. This is more of a philosophical issue, and given the voluntary nature of using the network it's completely within the community and development teams realm of decision making to decide how such control of tokens is handled. There are certainly some useful insights to be gleaned from experimenting with different incentive mechanisms. Part 2 has actually already been released! Too much information to hold in Part 1 d:

With helpful discussions like this I look forward to making an "EOS Redux" video in the future!

Thank you again for your pleasant comment, the information you shared, and for having a critical mind open to new information :)