>This combination is pretty antithetical to the 'spirit' of open source (and especially 'libre software', which AGPL is supposed to be) since it basically ensures hegemony on any commercialization ecosystem to the original developer

The spirit of open source was never about giving away the software for free.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

The community was concerned with free speech. You want free beer (freedom of commercialization).

AGPL also says that you have to make your changes available. It doesn't say you have to sign a CLA. If you value your "IP", don't. If you value having your changes pushed upstream, do. It's completely up to you.