On proof of work, whomever has the most tokens (I guess you mean “money”?), can have the best hardware, so also has the most governance weight. But on proof of work, it seems like you get discounts the more money you are ready to invest. So PoW would also be worse in those terms. Anyway, both algorithms work by providing more voting power to the richest, one a little more than the other. So I wouldn’t personally argue about proof of stake being bad because of that reason. Both algorithms are basically shit (in terms of democracy or whatever). I don’t have much knowledge about that, but there might be a better alternative than Proof of stake, don’t know.
I am not aware of any crypto consensus algorithm that is not regressive. This is an argument against all cryptocurrencies and blockchains, not just Proof of Stake.
What has proven far more equitable than any decentralized consensus algorithm is a fiat currency issued and controlled by an institution accountable to a democratic constituency.
On proof of work, whomever has the most tokens (I guess you mean “money”?), can have the best hardware, so also has the most governance weight. But on proof of work, it seems like you get discounts the more money you are ready to invest. So PoW would also be worse in those terms. Anyway, both algorithms work by providing more voting power to the richest, one a little more than the other. So I wouldn’t personally argue about proof of stake being bad because of that reason. Both algorithms are basically shit (in terms of democracy or whatever). I don’t have much knowledge about that, but there might be a better alternative than Proof of stake, don’t know.
I am not aware of any crypto consensus algorithm that is not regressive. This is an argument against all cryptocurrencies and blockchains, not just Proof of Stake.
What has proven far more equitable than any decentralized consensus algorithm is a fiat currency issued and controlled by an institution accountable to a democratic constituency.