Yes, read sections 5.4.2 and 6 of the white paper. Prime Controllers don't have anything to do until POS starts.
But when POS starts, the nearest prime controller to the transmitting node verifies and locks the transaction, then broadcasts it to other nodes and controllers. If a consensus of prime controllers agree that it is a valid transaction it gets added to the blockchain.
The weight (number/quantity) of the staked coins that prime controllers have give them more authority to verify. The weight of the staked coins also disincentive-izes the prime controllers (or a consortium of prime controller owners) from performing illicit transactions.
Considering all..most of the ponzicoins will be stored on under Gaw's control wouldn't that give them control of the blockchain..similar to a bitcoin pool having 96% of the hashrate?
A large amount of the initial 12.5million coins are staked in the prime controllers. This weight is what gives these special nodes authority for the transaction's authenticity. There are 50 prime controllers staked with at least 1% of all available coins. The rest of the coins are now in the hands of the former hashlet owners' wallets, and the last little bit are being mined now... and floating around on exchanges.
So... no... GAW doesn't control 96% of the hashrate or the stake rate.
Vericoin had to hard fork their POS shitcoin when mintpal got hacked just to avoid a 51% attack by the hacker staking his stolen coins. And mintpal wasn't a shit coin staking site, just an exchange.
I guess you are asking about prime controller collusion? Just as it's very expensive to pull off a 51% attack on bitcoin, and counter-productive... it's the same concept in paycoin-land.
So prime controllers basically means Visa/Mastercard/Paypal where Gaw can change/block/reverse any transaction they chose, they will control the ponzicoin blcokchain....that's not crypto
Or... you could go read the source code and point to where this is possible?