I was originally going to write a reply to this post, but I ended up typing too much. So, I decided to create a new post on the topic instead. It's my first post here, some feedback and/or discussion would be much appreciated.

When it comes to Proof of Work (PoW) vs Proof of Stake (PoS), it is apparent that PoW allows for decentralization in network control, while PoS inherently centralizes control of networks to larger stake holders (basically fiat 2.0, Cantillon effect). If bitcoin is to be an upgrade to the current fiat system, it must utilize PoW to make money creation costly, while keeping the network decentralized.

One major problem with fiat money is that money creation is free and the ones controlling the money printer have every incentive to keep creating money for free. Much similarities can be drawn between the fiat money system and PoS token networks; most notably the ability to create monetary tokens without cost and centralized control of the monetary policy and the monetary network.

By using PoW, money creation is not free and each miner must input value (sunk cost of infrastructure plus variable cost of electricity) in order to create value. In other words, skin in the game; where mal-investment will be punished and efficiency will be rewarded. At the same time, anyone can opt into the PoW competition as long as they can secure an internet connection, a miner, and a sufficient of electricity. As such, PoW networks are much more decentralized and does not suffer from the Cantillon effect like PoS networks.

But not all PoW networks are created equal. In fact, I would argue that there is only one PoW network that is a sound monetary network: the bitcoin network. I have such a claim because the bitcoin network is the only true decentralized network that does not have a leader, company, a foundation, or a small group of people running it and controlling it. Bitcoin consensus is extremely hard to change due to its decentralized nature, and that is a great thing. One might argue, the breakthrough from bitcoin is the discovery of absolute scarcity (21 million hard cap); however, this absolute scarcity is only achieved and enforceable through decentralized consensus. Therefore, the importance of decentralization in the network is paramount.

When it comes to monetary policy, immutability and predictability allows for users of the money to plan for the future and make sound economic calculations / decisions. Examples such as using a variable measuring tape to build a house have been given to describe the fiat monetary policy, which can change on a whim. I believe the same can be argued for PoS networks or other centralized PoW networks, which centralizes control of the network. When control is centralized, monetary policy can be changed by those in control, in favor of those in control. The more the centralization, the easier the monetary policy gets changed.

Fact of the matter is that PoW or PoS isn't the only property determining whether a monetary network is sound or not sound. PoW simply allows for decentralization where PoS does not. Yet, PoW networks can also be centralized and centrally controlled (for example, litecoin, ravencoin). As such, PoW is only one piece of the sound money puzzle. Other pieces include the difficulty adjustment, absolute scarcity, immutable ledger, predictable monetary policy, and the most important piece, decentralization. It is with these pieces combined that bitcoin arises to be the best money in the history of mankind.

Just my 2 sats. Keep working and keep it real.

PS The last sentence was totally giving me Captain Planet vibes. The following had to be done.