proof of stake is the solution to your concerns.
I don't believe PoS (proof-of-stake) is secure and it is inherently top-down control not decentralized crypto-currency. See my upthread explanations linked as follows. I have deleted your post, because you quoted the entire OP and only wrote the one sentence above.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5033780#msg5033780https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5111679#msg5111679https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5114040#msg5114040https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5114084#msg5114084https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5115441#msg5115441https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455141.msg5115547#msg5115547
Also, I didn't know about TimeKoin. I was investigating cryptocoins that eliminate mining and was thinking it might be a good idea simply to allow a randomly selected user to create the next block.
The problem is where does the entropy for the randomness of sequence come from in non-PoW schemes?
In PoW, the decentralized entropy is coming from the DECENTRALIZED hashrate that is randomly selecting nonces to compute as trialed block solutions until one is found. There is no need to invoke trust nor reputation.
Unfortunately non-PoW schemes have no way to generate that randomness, e.g. the seed for the pseudorandom generator will always derive from some top-down vote or reputation factor. The ordering will always be low-entropy, top-down voting, trust, and reputation. This is inherently top-down and centralized. This will put us right back at fiat again.
Sorry.
There is also Emunie, which works by rewarding prior work with newly minted coins, i.e, it pays wages. It also attempts to peg the price of the coin to the US$ or basket of commodities. It's also closed-source, so its not really an option for adoption, but I found it interesting.
No matter how much these non-PoW designs obfuscate the lack of entropy in very complex design specifications, they will never solve the fundamental mathematical issue. Because there is no mechanism for the decentralized entropy to be generated.
I thought very deeply about this and it is why I abandoned my own proof-of-diskspace design.
I need some expert mathematicians to work on proving this assertion more formally.
I am very sorry to have to spill the bad news on this. It means many people are going to be angry at me. Sorry.
PoW is the genius of Satoshi's contribution. That is the one aspect we can't discard.
You are likely correct that if an altcoin has stronger anonymity then perhaps governmental actors may want to consider a 50%+ attack. The solution is PoS. I'm not sure what you mean by "current proof-of-stake can't redistribute new coins to masses & I posit it isn't secure" The security aspect seems to be currently working ok for Nxt. The distribution issue is purely an economics problem and since any crypto is easily copied what's the problem with distribution?
Security by top-down control and reputation is fiat. That isn't the type of security that I want. I want security from decentralized high entropy where no one can take control of the system.
Without competition in mining, there is no way to select who to give new coins (or demurrage in Freicoin) to that isn't inherently controlled top-down, i.e. fiat. Then you still need socialism to take from the rich and give to the poor. Because the fact of life is that wealth is power-law distributed [1] because the wealthy spend only a small fraction on their personal expenses. So eventually with usury the wealthy own 100%. Thus you need a way to redistribute wealth else society fails into a Dark Age. The socialism way of redistribution can be gamed by the wealthy who buy the government. Thus decentralized competition through PoW mining is the only way to fix the problem that has been plaguing society during the entire history of mankind since Mesopotamia.
[1] Dragulescu & Yakovenko. Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States