> Notice concepts such as PoS would make it even more concentrated.
That is a common misconception, it seems to me. Assume a PoS scheme in which the probability that you get the reward is proportional to your share of all coins. Yes, large holders are more likely to get the reward, but if they get the reward, it basically increases their share by close to nothing. If a small holder gets the reward, they get a substantial boost. It averages out.
It is a bit like a savings account. Everyone gets X% interest a year, so the big holders get more interest than the small holders, sure. But the proportions of wealth stay constant.
With PoS, every staker (on average) just maintains their fraction of the total supply. So PoS just enshrines the wealth inequality that exists at the time PoS starts.
Similar to how PoW distributes rewards: those with the capital to purchase mining power will reap benefits.
This model unfortunately also exists in stock markets and most aspects of a capitalist society. Arguably PoS returns in crypto networks may be slightly more equitable long-term as it is not a permissioned and closed-door system (validator queues cannot discriminate based on class, race, credit score, region, and family for example).
That is a common misconception, it seems to me. Assume a PoS scheme in which the probability that you get the reward is proportional to your share of all coins. Yes, large holders are more likely to get the reward, but if they get the reward, it basically increases their share by close to nothing. If a small holder gets the reward, they get a substantial boost. It averages out.
It is a bit like a savings account. Everyone gets X% interest a year, so the big holders get more interest than the small holders, sure. But the proportions of wealth stay constant.