ETH just broke the crucial 0.06 BTC support line and is now trading at a new all time low since they switched from PoW to PoS just over one year ago. It's not exactly uncharted waters for ETH since it had been trading lower than that before, but somehow many expected things to be different after the switch."Ether reached its lowest levels against Bitcoin BTC tickers down $26,558 in 14 months, breaching the critical 0.06 BTC support. This has raised questions among Ether investors about the factors behind this price decline and what it will take to reverse the trend."

So was this PoS just mostly hype, or is it just way too early to tell? Even though I'm not a big fan of the switch, IMO it is being rather melodramatic to proclaim the race is over. Nevertheless the community could use some inspiring words. Oh Vitalik where art thou? Promoting the defunct and borderline "privacy pools" scam that Ameen guy has been aggressively pushing lately:

Jeez man, it really is things like this that makes me glad Bitcoin doesn't have a central figure. But now might be the right time to introduce you to this conspiracy-ish post I found last year. I have to clarify, I don't 100% understand everything being stated and I absolutely do not agree with everything, but certain PoS problems and statements (particularly from Vitalik) I was previously unaware of, did check out. It is rather long, like unnecessary long, but to understand everything he's trying to say you really should take 15 minutes and give the whole thing a read. You'll find some inconsistencies, but also some sound reasoning. But anyways the key problem and question is:

"Proof of stake is a scam. When I say that, I mean that proof of stake is (1) claimed to be a consensus system, and (2) constitutionally incapable of actually producing a consensus....once they have withdrawn their deposits, they are untouchable. This is the “nothing at stake” problem. There will inevitably come a point when a node is free to liquidate their entire stake and cash out. At that point, the network has a problem:

1. That key is valid to sign any number of versions of, let’s say, block #200, and there is no objective, system-internal standard for which version is legitimate, other than “the one that was published first”.
2. The node can sign whatever it wants with that key with no consequences. There is no way to punish it, because it has nothing at stake.

Virtually all systems attempt to solve this problem in the same way:

1. If a node signs another version of the same block within a reasonably short time period, “slash” their deposits (e.g. punish them inside of the system)
2. If a node signs another version of the same block, like, a year later, just ignore it.

Here’s your problem: how do you know which version was first?"

If there are any ETH PoS experts out there I would really like to hear the answers to the problems he's presenting. Note that this was written before ETH actually switched to PoS, so there might have been some answers already in practice as oppose to the theoretical quotes. There has to be right, how else could ETH make it under PoS for over one year now? I mean, I know Vitalik himself is still cautious regarding the complexity, but it really can't be as black and white as this post claims it is right....right?