You either don't know what your talking about or you're lying. Stake leasing isn't required in NXT and the cost of running a node is minuscule.
All it takes is for anyone to look at your post history to tell you're a serial liar and your entire purpose on this forum is to shill for NXT. You picked the wrong person to shill against who can easily demonstrate how NXT really functions:
Pooled staking is required in NXT for the exact same reason pooled mining is required in Bitcoin PoW. Everything you claim, in reality, is already shown to be false because Bitcoin shows us the reasons.
You claim "anyone" can stake, yet that's like saying "anyone" can solo mine Bitcoin using a $5 USB miner. Yes, you are technically "mining", but if you never validate any blocks, or one block a century, that does nothing to help the security model and you may as well not exist. All that matters is
how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.
Due to the fact that it's
already a given other people are going to be pooling stake for frequency of payouts in the endgame of standard PoS, the act of them doing so makes it even harder for you to solo stake (more like impossible), thus forcing you into pooling stake as well. It's a textbook case of snowballing feedback loop. It eventually turns into the exact same thing as Bitcoin PoW pool mining centralization.
Once again "pooled staking" isn't "required in NXT". The rational for actors in PoW vs PoS is entirely different. There is no depreciating assets that must ROI by a set date in PoS. You are assuming a lot of false conditions in an attempt to rationalize your desire to force centralization on PoS. If you have 10k NXT forging, you will always produce ~3.15 blocks per year assuming all stake is forging regardless of other actors. You cannot compare PoW to PoS because they are entirely different systems.
DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT.
I'm not sure if the problem is you don't understand how PoW, PoS, and DPoS work, or if you're lying on purpose. All three of those consensus mechanisms use delegation. DPoS is the only consensus mechanism with Sybil protection built into the protocol because it forces you to manually audit each block validator and vote for them. For example, when you use a mining pool in PoW, or lease your stake in standard PoS to a pool (which is required as it scales as shown above), if three big pools own all of the hashrate (or leased stake power), the protocol is only telling you to send your vote power to the smallest one to avoid 51% attack. There is nothing in the protocol of PoS or PoW forcing you to audit all three pools to make sure they aren't owned or run by the same person, which they easily can be.
You then have no other option but to vote for one of the three pools (delegation) even though it's all the same guy because solo mining is useless. Your other option is to create your own pool and run a political campaign to try and attract transient miners (or leased stake). In doing so, you've just recreated a more inefficient version of DPoS with less block validators and 5 tps vs real DPoS with 100,000 TPS and 3s blocks.
You cannot "audit" private businesses who are delegates. You cannot "audit" under the table dealings and secret arrangements between delegates. It's been proven that a very small amount of the Bitshares' shareholders can effectively control the entire delegate selection process through strategic voting. The problem with DPoS and the reason it's susceptible to sybil attacks is because you withdrew the requirement for owning stake and replaced with a political election with an
unworkable ballot system. Even if you made every single delegate submit ID, you still would be susceptible to political and business cronyism which would remain undetectable. Collusion between delegates is also a form of sybil attack.
Furthermore, your insistence that PoS must accept arbitrary centralization to scale is absurd. No platform is even close to reaching 100 tps let alone 1ktps or 100ktps.
There is no "arbitrary" centralization. DPoS is engineered knowing what the end game of all these consensus mechanisms turn into, and forces a mandatory number of block validators instead of letting it dwindle down to 3 like in pooled mining or pooled staking. Deterministic block validation is also
required to run a 2.0 platform. Any system without it shouldn't even be considered one. You can't run things like exchanges and all this other stuff with 10 minute or even 1 minute blocks.
Yes, there is "arbitrary" centralization in DPoS. You arbitrarily capped the max amount of forgers at 101. You are again assuming PoS forgers will centralize in a similar manner to PoW miners, but the fact is that there are
currently 216 forgers independently operating on the NXT network. Your hypothesis isn't backed up by facts.