By definition to be SUSTAINABLY decentralized, then a P2P system should be resilient to government action against nodes of the system. Given that PoS makes the owners of the currency culpable to the government and they are also the miners, then in theory the design is not resilient to regulatory control (and as per my complaint against Satoshi's design upthread, it forces nation-states to cooperate in a world governance to cooperate on multinational regulation).
Contrast it to the Gnutella where you pretty much have to ban the protocol to destroy it. PoS is Napster, except with the distinction that government would have to go after numerous stake holders, not just one company.
It doesn't logically follow that there surely can't exist other designs which are resilient. Thus IMO it is a flaw.
P.S. I linked the post on the first page to this post for clarification on the contention.
Well, in this case in Panama PoS doesn't have those flaws. Maybe you should add a note, something like "not applicable in Panama"?
The threat of government action is globally pervasive. Please reread my post, as I edited it. There is already a precedent. Btw, the USA is in control of Panama. They are just allow fools to incriminate themselves before the world government takes form. Putin is in control of where you are. Putin is not a saviour. He is part of the push to world governance.
A decentralized system shouldn't have systemic failure modes. It should be self-healing where if you destroy 99% of the nodes, then it bounces right back.