@OP don't take it personally , atfirst i thought PoS is better than PoW , but the consequences are bit more harsh.
PoS is more Shit than PoW
Proof of Stake prompts centralization, with more awful outcomes than PoW It would be ideal if you let me introduce this by saying PoS is a specialized enhancement past PoW. It enables the system to utilize altogether less assets in mining. This is great since it doesn't require the vitality necessities of a little nation to keep up the system.
So, when it connects with this present reality and financial matters it is no superior to Proof of Work.
Proof of Work depends on a numbers session of who has the most hashing force while proof of stake depends on a measurably reasonable round of whoever has the most crypto. Every ostensible unit of coin has parallel chances to be picked for its wallet to be the following mineworker. One stipulation of PoS, be that as it may, is that the wallet must be on the web. To be on the web, it requires assets (hardware, electricity, and internet connection). Assets have a true expense. Because of the reality PoS doesn't expect you to battle with hashing power, the vitality cost and hardware costs don't ascend with chances of being mined the following square (the mining lottery).
Along these lines, bigger stakes, have a less expensive expense to mine than littler stakes. To delineate this reality, envision you have a PC in your home with 1 ETH and your neighbor has an indistinguishable PC setup in his home however with 2 ETH. The vitality requires to run the two setups are actually the equivalent and the overhead hardware are the equivalent so the expense to run every one of your mining activities is the equivalent. In any case, your neighbor has 2x chances you do since he has 2x more ETH. Since each square will offer a similar mining reward paying little heed to your stake estimate, the normal esteem (odds*payout) for every unit of ETH is the equivalent, you and your neighbor both have the equivalent expected EV. In any case, in light of the fact that those machines have an expense to run, their profitabilities are unique. Your neighbor has 1/2 the expense for every unit of generation, as you.
Given the way that the bigger stake holder winds up with a bigger net revenue, as a normal financial specialist, he would keep a greater amount of the mined ETH to expand his generation capacity. So a bigger stake holder would develop his ETH stake quicker than a littler stake holder.
After a point, the expense of being a piece of the mining task would be too high with respect to the payout for little stake holders and they would reasonably drop out of the mining business, taking their wallets disconnected.
This prompts centralization of mining and the rich get more extravagant, quicker.
The option would be for littler stake holders to gather as one and move the majority of their wallets to a focal administration at that point share all mined ETH and running expenses as it would diminish the per unit cost of the activity.
This is called economies of scale. We saw this right off the bat in Bitcoin. The distinction with Proof of Stake is that it would require the majority of the littler holders to put their stakes in a similar area. This makes a helplessness not exclusively to hacking yet to outside jurisdictional power, for example, direction, tax collection, and so forth.
So one way or alternate, PoS will prompt centralization a similar way PoW does because of economies of scale. While it ends up diminishing the vitality cost to run the foundation of the system to a small amount of what PoW requires, it winds up presenting a lot of new hazard which cryptos aren't intended to deal with (i.e. outside direction and jurisdictional control).