On another point, as I have been trying to argue, I think Proof of Work is economically more sound than Proof of Stake. You are effectively being backed by Energy.
This is a wrong use of the notion of "backed". An asset cannot be backed by WASTE. If one says that a currency is backed by gold, it means that one can OBTAIN GOLD (of value) against the currency. One sometimes talks about 'debt-backed money', but in fact, what one wants to point out, is "promise-backed money". A promise has value (a debt, not). A mortgage is not debt-backed, it is real-estate-backed. The mortgage will be honoured in value, and if not, it will be honoured with a REAL HOUSE. There is economical value to be obtained by a backing. However,
wasted energy doesn't back anything, not more than dog poop does.
Also, for Proof of Stake as a way to mint coins, you are dependent on utility and speculation for your currency to be worth anything. If it is just for consensus, then this last argument doesn't stand.
I think the big error in bitcoin, most crypto, including say, peercoin (the prototype PoS coin), is that they still couple consensus decision with reward (mining, minting...). In PoW you have no choice: nobody is going to WASTE RESOURCES and prove it, without a compensation, just to help the system come to consensus. But as PoS doesn't demand a proof of wasted economical value, and only a small computational effort, there's no need to reward it, and minting is a bad idea: minting is what renders PoS unstable ("nothing at stake" problem).
The error committed by most crypto (copied from bitcoin) is the link between coin creation, and consensus decision. There's no link in fact and consensus decision shouldn't be rewarded with coin creation.