Proof-of-stake coins lack one of proof-of-work coins most important properties: censorship resistance.
In both consensus systems, a censor is someone that has amassed 51% of the currently available stake (in PoW stake is mining machines, in PoS it is outstanding tokens).
In proof-of-work systems, a censor can be unseated by censored parties allocating more capital to mining machines until non-censoring parties own 51% of all machines.
In proof-of-stake systems, it is impossible to unseat a censor: since it owns 51% of tokens, it will also owns 51% of newly minted units in perpetuity (assuming it doesn't stop censoring and doesn't run into issues that would end up slashing some of their stake).
The math in this article makes it sound trivial for any major government to destroy bitcoin.
https://joekelly100.medium.com/how-to-kill-bitcoin-part-2-no...
It points out that "But we can spend more on hardware then they could." is false. Once it was outlawed, they can just seize the mining hardware.
So PoS may actually be more resistant. Instead of acquiring physical hardware governments would have to start acquiring the currency. If they have to purchase it, it will drive the price up. While they maybe able to seize it in this scenario as well, it would seem the virtual crypto world would have better protection than the physical world.
In both consensus systems, a censor is someone that has amassed 51% of the currently available stake (in PoW stake is mining machines, in PoS it is outstanding tokens).
In proof-of-work systems, a censor can be unseated by censored parties allocating more capital to mining machines until non-censoring parties own 51% of all machines.
In proof-of-stake systems, it is impossible to unseat a censor: since it owns 51% of tokens, it will also owns 51% of newly minted units in perpetuity (assuming it doesn't stop censoring and doesn't run into issues that would end up slashing some of their stake).