This is wrong i think.
Imagine you have two coins only.
Coin A is POW, it is 10 years old, it has 100 billion market cap, it has 5% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and every merchant on earth accepts it.
Coin B is POS, it is 5 years old, it has 1 billion market cap, it has 0% inflation, it costs 1 billion to attack it and no merchant accepts it.
You can switch from one coin to the other one for free or very very cheaply.
In this scenario every rational investor would chose to have most of his savings in coin B and he would switch to coin A only when he needs to spend.
As time goes by almost everyone moves from coin A to coin B, coin B market cap grows to 1 billion, coin A is abandoned and merchants forget about coin A and start to accept coin B only.
Network effect might not be enough to save bitcoin.
Bitcoin will have 6 % inflation in 2016, 5% inflation in 2017, 3% inflation in 2019, and 0.5% inflation in 2026
Well there certainly is a race a foot and we will see if other alts can play catchup when Bitcoin is slowly switching from mining hashes to secure the network to mining transactions to secure the network.
You clearly didn't understand what i was trying to say.
POW is not stable with low or 0% inflation and the entire cost of network security pushed on those who make transactions, it simply cannot work properly.
For a POW coin to be stable and reliable cost to attack must be proportional to market cap and it must be paid by stakeholders via a constant inflation.