Imagine voting based on the value of your assets, where Musk has 100 billion votes and 30 millions have zero since they only have debts.
This is an invalid argument. It's true, but so is in PoW too. It's obvious that those with more money can have greater share. This is not why PoS brings centralisation; it's because those who
want to secure the network need those who
are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter.
The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.
In POS you miraculously have to come up with those 100 billion votes, in POW a huge mining farm can be brought down by poeple hobby mining, each losing 1$ a day on electricity but making the guys behind Foundry bankrupt, in POS you can't do that.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.