@balajis IMO the greatest problem with PoS is actually what its proponents tout as its greatest strength: the fact that running it is free. Result is that it's so tempting and easy to create PoS chains that every does, even if that means just copy-pastaing like Binance and Tron did.

@balajis Stakers don't have any expense so they keep their rewards. On paper that's great for the price, but the result is that it doesn't cost anything to bootstrap a PoS chain, and incentivises every one to create another one to try to capture the traffic of the first one.

@balajis IMO the long term competitive equilibrium between PoS chains is that they trade like the equities of cloud storage companies, with their transaction fees playing the role of dividends. Also they'll be under permanent pressure from stakers to increase tx throughput.

@balajis There's also the "rich get richer" issue. I would posit that capital is way less distributed across jurisdictions than cheap energy, whose distribution is the result of blind geological/astronomical processes.

@balajis G7 nations represent 66% of the world's financial assets. How distributed does stake look like now?
Add to that other "western block" nations (Aus/NZ, rest of western europe) and you're at 80%. All closely aligned jurisdictions, "best in class" as far as following FATF rules go.

@balajis Also the "rich get richer" aspect of PoS means that whatever level of stake decentralisation will either stay the same or only get worse.

@balajis Compare that with PoW, where you have energy sources distributed across geopolitical fault lines. Who knew that China had abundant excess hydro before Bitcoin allowed it to be used, who knew that 25% of El Salvador energy came from volcanoes before last week?

@balajis Source of the "distribution of the world's financial assets" stats:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_financial_assets