Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Pay $1 to a single private company" is not the same as "pay $1 toward every circulating token in the network." If you consider this a tax, it is a tax distributed to all current and future holders of the currency, including the user doing the transaction. If "changing of the guard" means replacing VISA with thousands of VISAs in a decentralized network, where any non-VISA can become yet another VISA through permissi…
> If you consider this a tax, it is a tax distributed to all current and future holders of the currency, including the user doing the transaction. Yes. A tax on every transaction apportioned by wealth to current holders (not to future holders because they will receive fewer tokens from constant input). A regressive tax. > If "changing of the guard" means replacing VISA with thousands of VISAs in a decentralized netwo…
> rules being set ... by wealth
I'm not sure where you got that. Depending on what you mean, in PoS some rules are set by node operators - software that can be run by anybody for free - and the hard rules of the protocol are set by social consensus.
I think this discussion also misses the forest for the trees: Eth tokens are not coupled to dollar wealth. Ethers are not "up-only" and they do not need to be for the network to function. A boom or bust in the price of Eth does not change the price of DAI or USDC, and pegged stablecoin tokens is what users would be transacting with if we are entertaining the idea of a crypto alternative to VISA.