Thanks, Chris. I listened to your podcast on PeakD.
Here's some food for thought:
While it may be true that proof-of-work blockchains (BTC, ETH 1.0, etc) may actually be functioning as "delegated proof of work" when mining pools are taken into consideration, proof-of-stake blockchains have one issue that PoW chains do not have: Exchanges can vote with user tokens to make governance decisions on the protocol. In EOS's case this means voting in 30 of their friends as well (because of the 30 votes per token which I also feel is an issue).
In PoW blockchains it is not possible for exchanges to vote with user funds because one "votes" with hashrate instead of with tokens.
When you factor in that EOS has over 120M user tokens being voted with by Exchange-BPs (25% of the entire voting supply), this why, to a degree, I'd call EOS's governance model "Delegated EXCHANGE Proof of Stake".
https://twitter.com/COLINTCRYPTO/status/1298243879603404803
- COLINTCRYPTO
Proxies' effects recently have been growing, which helps combat this. Another way to combat this is with Dan Larimer's staking pool idea. It rewards longer staking with more vote weight and more rewards-- something that exchanges have a difficult time doing with user funds.
I do wonder how ETH 2.0 is going to handle this issue of Exchanges voting with their users' funds. If ETH 2.0 devs are smart they will adopt a similar staking pool strategy that Dan Larimer has proposed (but that EOS has yet to adopt).
Here's Dan's acknowledgement of this issue:
I wrote more in depth about this topic below. It can get nuanced, so I cover it in more detail in this short video:
RE: The Hypocrisy Of Ethereum EOS Haters