This all sounds very good and I must admit nano looks like the first thing that starts to make sense in the crypto world. My only point of interrogation is whether having more money can give you more voting power, like PoS, in which case I can't align with it
In my opinion it's still (delegated) PoS. PoS doesn't imply any particular blockchain structure; it's just about using stake as a Sybil-resistant method of selecting certain users for certain roles.
While Nano uses a weighted-voting system (ORV) that can be compared to PoS, it differs from traditional PoS because:
* There is not one monolithic blockchain that requires leader selection (i.e. a staker or a miner) to extend
* Representatives do not create or produce shared blocks (groups of transactions)
* Each Nano account has its own blockchain that only the owner can modify (representatives can only modify their own blockchain)
* In Nano, a block is a single transaction (not a group of transactions). Transactions are evaluated individually and asynchronously
* Users can remotely re-delegate their voting weight to anyone at any time
* Anyone can be a representative
* No funds are staked or locked up
* Representatives do not earn transaction fees
* Representatives cannot reverse transactions that nodes have locally confirmed (due to block cementing).
- from https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/orv-consensus/