I don't get why people are so prompt to make the analogy PoS=Fiat. In fiat people who vote (Central bankers) have divergent interest with fiat holders, they have no skin in the game. Whereas with PoS the interest of the decision makers are the same than the interest of holders.
Correct. It is like a popular democracy where shares (money) can be created and destroyed based on popular opinion. For example, SlipperySlope has a tricky decision to make: should he credit Satoshi with his estimated 1,000,000 shares and risk a dump of 8% of the outstanding bit
shares? Or should he redistribute them more "fairly"?
When I asked him about his policy on the redistribution of wealth, he said the following about the Satoshi coins:
The best case for redistribution to add to Satoshi's social contract would be to make permanent the up-to-now unspent coins that Satoshi mined while alpha testing the live chain.
I found it very interesting that SlipperySlope believes that Satoshi holds some sort of "social contract" with us not to spend his coins. I disagree.
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too? And then perhaps it will become popular opinion that some whales have too many shares and it's unfair that the staking rewards flow in proportion to stake rather than work. The bit
shares community will claim that people should be rewarded for work, not for rent-seeking. And then perhaps they will vote for some sort of progressive transfers of shares from these whales to projects for the betterment of humanity (the "greater good").
Bit
coins are very difficult to create for a reason.