Follow
PoS cryptocurrencies don't mask the social phenomenon of rich getting richer, but rather force their authors to address it if they think of it as problem. Which they should.
@robby yeah, that's exactly my point. PoS without governance "rewards" stakeholders proportionally to the stake they hold. Which is something PoW fanatics normally use to blame PoS being a "rich get richer" system.
So my answer to this is: yes, naively, rich do get richer, but PoS systems embrace it instead of sweeping under "anyone can buy a GPU" rug.
@jonn I see, I think I might have misinterpreted your first post :)
@jonn I disagree, at least relative to PoW cryptocurrencies. PoS makes the minimum hardware requirement to participate in consensus (and reap the rewards for doing so) next to nothing. This initial investment is something many people can do, even those who are not rich.
Contrast this to PoW, which (usually) requires a huge hardware investment up-front in order to mine the crypto. This investment is so incredible that almost no one who uses (transacts with) PoW cryptocurrencies actually mines them. This creates two classes of users: the maintainers (miners) and the users. Only those rich enough to become a miner can reap the rewards of being a miner.
And if you want to contrast PoS to fiat currencies instead, staking is akin to putting your money in a savings account, which anyone can do, and earn the same % interest on, regardless of how much you deposit. Would you consider this problematic and a case of “the rich getting richer”? If you do see this as problematic, how can we approach a solution to this, if at all?