That sounds nice in theory, and for the first few years of Bitcoin's existence, this was largely true. However, once ASICs were engineered, and once large minin

That sounds nice in theory, and for the first few years of Bitcoin's existence, this was largely true. However, once ASICs were engineered, and once large mining operation data centers were brought online, it has become more of a cartel than a "democratic system no one person controls". I like a chain beginning its life as PoW and then later as it matures transitioning to PoS. At some point, the mining rewards will dry up, as this paper points out. Then the game theory mechanics for BTC will change such that transaction ordering and execution become the main competition for miners to fight for, with some blocks being much more profitable than others despite electricity costs remaining static for each block. That's a huge problem, and PoW doesn't have the fix for that. Ethereum's current proposal on this is to burn transaction fees. This is possible because ETH doesn't have a capped issuance, so block rewards will never dry up. Bitcoin doesn't have this option. It will have to, at some point in the future (maybe 20 years, I dunno), either give up 21 million capped supply or Proof-of-Work to sustain itself.