The following comment got censored on ethresear.ch in this thread, so I’ll move it here and complain on Twitter.
Another argument against PoW and PoS is that they both are not fully distributed, they are just decentralized at best, so they thus concentrate power, and open influence to corruption, wealth inequality, hoarding of money, and have a reduced potential to distribute decision making and economic activity and enable greater economic growth, distributed prosperity and stigmergic collaboration rather than capitalistic competition. Use of mutual credit currencies can enable healthier, more sustainable economies, societies, and the environment.
See e.g. the first post of a series exploring unenclosable carriers, currencies, and Holochain:
“Unenclosable Carriers and the Future of Communication” by Arthur Brock
Universal consensus protocols like PoW and PoS also do not scale well: as the number of nodes increase, the transaction speed slows down. With Holochain apps, transactions speed up as the number of agents/nodes increase. Each app runs on its own network, with full interoperability planned with Ceptr.
Validation is not customisable and optimizable with Ethereum to the needs of each app.
You can’t build a fully distributed, full-stack app on Ethereum, you have to do things off-chain, such as data storage, and just work with smart contracts in the backend. Holochain enables full stack apps with front end UI support and backend support for Rust, while development kits for other languages can be developed. However, it’s not encouraged with Holochain to put large files on the global Distributed Hash Table (DHT), and use something like IPFS instead. There’s also Holo, a distributed hosting service built on Holochain, and that has a mutual credit currency, Holofuel, which is stable-value and asset-backed by hosting assets and services.