I think DOT has more value than just monetary. The comparison of capitalist versus socialist is also a bit strange. I assume that DV is also fundamentally interested in increasing market capitalization. Other approaches may be prioritized for this. (I'm probably not aware of all of your disputes or disagreements.)
If you look closely, it could actually be bad to the technical benefits of the ecosystem if DOT was to grow significantly in value.
The demand for an asset that can be financially exploited or a sustainable one that is technically or maybe as well morally advanced are very different. Of course we all want both. But both sides should actually be taken into account.
(That should be mentioned. I consider OpenGov in its current form to be anything but morally right. But that's not the point.)

What is your exact accusation in the matter against DV?

We believe the W3F needs to take ownership of the consequences of their delegation.

If the W3F delegates to White American+European Males, after a while, the Asian Female (or any similar group outside the median choice) will conclude:
"Polkadot OpenGov is not a place for me."
"These people are too aggressive. Not our Asian culture."
[Yes, I have had actual people tell me this in private.]
A "World Computer" that is biased to Europeans is hardly a "World Computer". The level of toxicity got worse, not better with DVs with public Twitter feuds being visible to all. If this is the future of decentralized governance, its not good -- it excludes people and it sure looks like the W3F is in charge.

Only a few years ago there were entire Polkadot events conducted in Chinese AND English and Portuguese, and I felt this represented the ideal that Polkadot strived for, maybe all of crypto. Its too much to ask that every language be covered, that every community be treated equally and fairly, whatever that means. Perhaps the W3F could try to balance out their delegation in a "fair" way, but I think its better for W3F to not meddle in anything at all.

If the W3F does feel compelled to meddle, I believe the DVs should be selected to be focussed on GROWTH, with the kind of people and experience to run $10B-50B companies, not $10-50MM companies. Usually this involves people qualified to be on a Board of Directors who have experienced growth, and are cognizant of competition, and demand performance and observable impact. These kinds of people have low patience for racist policies or fair policies, and will want a world computer that utterly dominates the future of permissionless computing.