Proof of Stake doesn't just have a problem with rich get richer effects, it's fundamentally logically unsound and is inherently insecure as a decenteralized con

Proof of Stake doesn't just have a problem with rich get richer effects, it's fundamentally logically unsound and is inherently insecure as a decenteralized consensus mechanism. Schemes which claim to have 'proven' the security of POS do so by assuming that you externally have a secure consensus mechanism (or one in disguise, e.g. a network which delivers all messages in the same order to all users), resulting in a completely tautological "proof". For more info on the unsoundness of POS: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf The reason you see it as part of the plans of some altcoins is that the creators of these coins wrote into their ledgers enormous numbers of coins for themselves, and are now stuck with largely illiquid billion dollar "investments" that they can't substantially sell without collapsing their markets and which aren't earning interest-- using POS gives them an excuse to guarantee themselves a return. The fact that it locks others out of the consensus or undermines the security is just collateral damage. As a bonus it also creates a new avenue to pump their systems vs alternatives which are actually trying to remain secure and decentralized. I expect to see HN and other venues flooded with more anonymously authored articles promoting this stuff in the coming years.