I thought F2 Pool controlled the majority of hash power for the kryptonight algorythm. On that topic, I was reading that the Chinese government recently passed regulation, giving itself total oversight and control over all block chain facilities within its borders. That implies an entirely new dimension of risk IMO, but I’ll leave that one right there.
I did happen to read the previous post where you also mention that the purpose of ETN is to be spent and I’ll tell you why it’s impossible to impose that purpose as a constant.
Statistically, The coins that capture the least interest as a store of value are stable coins that are non minable and backed by cash assets on a 1:1 ratio. Their value is fixed so consumers spend them quickly as a transitional medium and have little interest in holding them as a store of value.
Despite intentions, the majority holders of ETN are speculative buyers, meaning those who are expecting a maturation of value to be cashed in at some future date. Accumulation continues for that purpose more so than any other. But you guys know this, as the longest running thread on this forum is all about that.
Last, ETN is seeking to be block chain/ Fintech hybrid. When it comes to Fintechs, there is no principle more important to business continuity than risk management. Ask anyone who is a Risk Manager for financial instruments and they’ll explain this.
In conclusion, POW introduces far too many variables, the first paragraph being an example. The run off effects of such variables are far more expensive to correct than they are to remove altogether. ETN has done a good job of responding to the market and should continue to do so. Perhaps POS should not be considered a last resort.