|
|
|
|
|
|
by atweiden
1486 days ago
|
|
|
> how does the capital cost being mining hardware and electricity rather than a pos token make the system more equitable? Every well known proof of stake system today was either premined, ICO’d, sold to investors in private rounds at “special” prices, or some combination of these. Naturally, if you were autoyielding passive income by staking pos coins you had a cost basis of effectively zero in, either because you participated in an ICO, or worse, because you had the right connections, or exploited your privileged position as developer to hard code coin balances for yourself into your own ledger prior to launch, you’d _love_ proof of stake and trumpet its supposed equity and fairness in public. In reality, the most privileged and exploitative of investors who have the lowest entry price get the highest rate of return on staking (effectively ∞ in the case of premine recipients). To insinuate this situation is “equitable” is beyond ridiculous. |
|
|
late entrants add value to networks, and some of that value accrues to early entrants. this is the same for any network. a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.
once the price of the token goes up, the difference between someone who was invited there early versus found their own way in does not matter to the new adopters. the inequity is felt purely based on the token price difference rather than the security mechanic.