I mentioned above, but "a team with enough tokens in their pocket would have enough incentive to do the same kind of user acquisition" is a pyramid scheme unless there's some genuine value for the people they will invite. And no, "the privilege to follow these people" is not strong enough of value proposition to make this happen. You can look at whole slew of examples of social networks that tried to bootstrap using celebrities but all failed. Then there are approaches where people get paid to invite others in (an actual pyramid scheme), such as tsu. None of these succeeds because these networks are incentivized by money.

A lot of services and apps we take for granted today work because the usage itself doesn't involve any monetary interest (at least among most casual users). As soon as the primary focus becomes money, the network's main purpose becomes money (vs. communication for example) and people will optimize their behavior towards that. And this is how it becomes inferior to the centralized (yet financially neutral) models.

Summary

1. Quality of service is inferior because everything involves money.

2. The assumption is that you will need to pay for certain things (that's how people make money). If I have to pay to post a tweet, I would rather post on a centralized twitter where it's all free.

3. I don't want to share my storage with the world (If you really wanted to be a contributing user of this decentralized twitter network, you should function as one of the nodes, which means you will be sharing your storage with the world. Again, personally I would rather opt for a centralized service.

4. Looking at all of the above, this decentralized twitter is pretty shitty compared to centralized version when it comes to end-user experience. Which brings up the question: Why would I invite my friends? Only reason I can think of is so that I can make money off of them, which is shady (and which is why I wouldn't invite friends).