Which paper? The papers say there is no viable 10% attack.
There also is no 10% whale or exchange in NXT - you crossing it out doesn't make a fact disappear, you know.
https://github.com/ConsensusResearch/articles-papers/blob/master/multistrategy/multistrategy.pdfA previous block explorer, now taken down in favor of one with less granularity, showed that between 4-14 members controlled over 51% of the Nxt stake.
Not sure what you mean with "we".
We know that PoW would be easier to attack if you magically get a 10% stake - since that would likely buy you 51% of all mining.
Incorrect as you assume that markets aren't dynamic, ignoring the costs of electricity, ignoring the alarms raised from amassing such large amounts of asics , ignoring the cost of setting up and maintaining the equipment and doing so in secrecy, ect...
A small proof of work component is exactly what NXT does.
Again, it would help if you read what you link - would waste less of everyone's time.
This has nothing to do with PoW consensus mechanisms. Next you are going to insinuate hashing itself is "work" thus one should consider all PoS to incorporate the PoW consensus mechanism. If we must use your twisted definition of PoW than the point still stands: Why does Vitalik insist upon a much more inefficient version of PoW with a hashimoto dagger IO bound PoW consensus mechanism?