I fear we are going into a direction where one day (if not even now) we'll be hostage of these big players overtaking the community ideals despite any decentralization.
I can relate a bit to your feelings, however, I'm still more optimistic. The "get rich quick" sentiment is nothing new by the way; the novelty is the major institutional involvement.
Bitcoin has a quite complex system of checks and balances. If a single big player like Saylor tried to change something fundamentally, e.g. proposing a protocol upgrade and executing pressure on Bitcoin Core developers, then it is still likely that many other actors would reject that upgrade if it is directed against decentralization. An actor wanting to change something has not only to convince the Bitcoin Core devs, but also miners and minor holders. He can of course code his own client, but the 2016/2017 blocksize war showed that this approach is very likely to fail.
Still I think the community should stay alert, because that equilibrium is not impossible to change. The cypherpunk values should always be reminded and held up, also by social media influencers. I think this is still the case, judging also by the positive feedback the "OGs" (Greg Maxwell etc.) get when they appear here in the forum.
My biggest worry would be a Bitcoin dominated by Central Banks which try to influence development. I have nothing against Bitcoin being used as a part of a small strategic reserve of different nations, but if the dominance of these actors is too high, then a distortion of the check and balances system is possible. Again, if the community stays alert probably even Central Banks can't change Bitcoin's character, but if the community's character changes, then the pressure to remain in line with cypherpunk ideals could weaken eventually.
