Why is LBRY not using proof of stake?

Today we’ll tackle a question from the comments (and one of our most common questions overall): why is our blockchain the way it is? More specifically, why aren't we using proof of stake?

The main reason is that proof of stake was not a serious option when LBRY launched. Our blockchain went live almost four years ago (June 2016) and we started designing it over a year prior to that. For context, Ethereum was just a year old back then and none of today’s major PoS chains were in existence. Bitcoin's proof-of-work, on the other hand, had a solid track record, strong adoption, and no major security flaws (despite the huge incentive to find one). The choice was easy.

A lot of things have changed since 2016. If we were starting from scratch today, proof of stake would be a viable option. Switching from our current system, however, would be a huge undertaking. Our efforts are focused on providing max value to our users, and the blockchain layer is not holding us back. That said, here are some things that would convince us to undertake the effort:

• If our blockchain layer stops meeting our needs or becoming our primary bottleneck.
• If we develop the capacity and appetite to significantly slow our progress in order to make the switch. Our current strategy does not support this, but that may change in the future.
• An overwhelming desire for this switch from our community. This would not be sufficient on it's own, but it would prompt us to dig into the issue.

What do you think? I'd love to hear from you, especially if you think we're wrong or missing part of the picture.